User talk:CombatMarshmallow

Hello CombatMarshmallow, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.

Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page
How you can help
Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

This is a little late, and it might look like "a lot", but this might give you a guide to some questions that come up. Most editors don't mind answering questions, but sometimes you need an answer "now" and if you leave a question for someone and they are away, it can be frustrating to wait. This is just a resource to get you started. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC) This guy who wrote this doesn't know shit[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 07:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Thank you for your help i will read and read and try again. Its true i didnt know any of that about signing my edits.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:09, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hogan's Heroes 1.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hogan's Heroes 1.jpg, which you've attributed to Self. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not remove file deletion tags from file description pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

well I was trying to be, Constructive , by changing the license to see if it would solve the problems . looks like I have to fill out an email with the photos to get them permission. Most people who have done what I have most likely don't know how to meet the proper criteria with photos .

File permission problem with File:Hogan's 1988.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hogan's 1988.jpg, which you've attributed to Self. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Hogan's 1989.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hogan's 1989.jpg, which you've attributed to Self. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Live Hogan's 3.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Live Hogan's 3.jpg, which you've attributed to yourself. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NWOAHM quote

Here you go. The quote is not promo. In references, quotes are used to show how exactly the source supports the material that cites it. In this case, the quote shows that the source mentions all the bands that are referenced with it. Why do you think the quote should be removed?

By the way, you still haven't answered my questions in the discussion on my talk page at User_talk:Mashaunix#.22never_done.22. Please do so.--MASHAUNIX 13:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what does it say there. ? Also you never answered about why you make stuff up at Wikipedia pages. Well documented on your talk page. Everyone go ahead and take a close look at that. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It says there what it says there. I'm assuming you can read. Be so kind as to answer my question. Why do you think the quote should be removed from the source on the NWOAHM page?--MASHAUNIX 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post the edit quote here and tell me what you don't understand about it. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You tell people to discuss things at the first sign of a dispute, rather than ever considering to offer a compromise, and then you are unable to actually discuss things without having everything spelled out for you? OK, whatever, here you go. With this edit you removed a quote from a reference that was used in the NWOAHM article to back up various bands that were listed as important to the movement. That was a mistake, because the quote served to clearly show how the reference backed up the information, and was therefore relevant. What is the upside of removing the quote?--MASHAUNIX 13:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there is no dispute. Those bands who should be listed are there on the page with the same reference. Do you see them like everyone else does. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute, because I think the quote should be left in the article. If you can't understand that, whatever, we'll move on to the next thing. In your edit on Hogan's Heroes you put a space before a hyphen. I have never seen this done in other articles. Why did you do this?--MASHAUNIX 14:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you do Deceptive edits again. You never answered. You also never said how when you changed hatebreed page and said you didnt remove sources but actually did. Here right here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mashaunix#USA. Plenty of Questions right. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my edits are deceptive. I don't recall removing any sources from the Hatebreed page. If you don't like my edits, feel free to report them as disruptive. Until then, I have nothing to tell you. Now then, do you insist on leaving the space before the hyphen at the Hogan's Heroes page, and if so, why?--MASHAUNIX 00:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You Don't remember? Here in the edit history. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatebreed&diff=next&oldid=651267464 . You also put the hatebreed was a "pioneer in the mid 1990s of metalcore". Need a reminder? theres Plenty here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mashaunix#Death_metal. Its a good read CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing to tell you. You're not asking me a specific question, just saying you think my edits are bad; OK, I get it. Can you answer me about the hyphen?--MASHAUNIX 14:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many pages do you have.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pages? Do you mean accounts? I have one account.--MASHAUNIX 14:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

I must leave shortly, so I can't carry on an extended conversation right this moment, but just to quickly respond, I think there's good reason to believe an article should exist for this group; there's continuing interest in the Verve Records discography, for which this band recorded a full-length album, and there may be sources available to bring to bear on an article about this group. I haven't done much legwork myself (I'm quite busy!), but this is a collaborative encyclopedia, and I think it's important to indicate that Wikipedia is not (nearly) finished, and that this is a spot where further work might be valuable. (Perhaps you might do some digging yourself, if this editing area continues to pique your interest.) In any case, there's no need for further reversions (I have not reverted you "every day" unless you are also the anonymous IP who made the same edits last week). I'd appreciate it if, as is consistent with WP:REDLINK and my outline above, you would indulge me in restoring the link. Chubbles (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also: You'd do well to do some more looking into what happened at When You're in Love (film). A totally unnecessary and nasty edit war ensued over a redlink that was blue even before the ink was dry. Chubbles (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is gone. Anyhow I agree that if something is so obscure or highly unlikely to ever have an article due to notability factor to not add redlinks. However I will end up searching some sources. I won't write the article but If you do and asked me to, I could contribute. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the trouble with a lot of the '60s and '70s-era bands like that one is that there's often source material buried in offline places, which is one of the reasons I was hoping to attract the attention of subject experts with the redlink. Some of these bands were profiled in contemporaneous publications, and some are covered in encyclopedias and discographies of niche genres, but little of this ends up available in internet searches (Wiki editors often seem to forget that not all the world's information is in Google, yet). There are some excellent e.g. prog and psych encyclopedias which I've used in the past to dig up information on bands (especially non-US/UK bands), but I do not have access to them at the moment (I usually have to order them through interlibrary loan, which takes time). Chubbles (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, CombatMarshmallow. You have new messages at Confession0791's talk page.
Message added 06:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Confession0791 ^talk 06:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CombatMarshmallow. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Confession0791 ^talk 20:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nu metal

I noticed you undid my edits on nu metal. I wanna explain some things to you:

I fixed the critics claiming Nu metal popularity declining thing. Only one of those sources actually spoke of Nu metal losing popularity. The rap rock source didn't speak of it at all. The Mainstream popularity section shouldn't be divided into 2 sections of the same name. That was made by an IP users. If they have the same name and are next to each other then they should be merged with each other. Nu metal was popular in both the late 90s and early 2000s and it should be put into one section instead of dividing in half. The part about Nu metal bands releasing albums in 1997 and Ozzfest happened before Nu metal became really mainstream. So I put it on the early development section because it doesn't go on the mainstream popularity section. 1997 wasn't where Nu metal broke in the mainstream, so it shouldn't be on the mainstream popularity section. I'll try maybe changing the name of the early development section and giving it a better name. The 2010s section had too many files and one file is enough. 3 files took up a lot of room. Also, list of nu metal bands should be on the "other topics" thing as it has something to do with Nu metal and shows examples of Nu metal bands and bands described as Nu metal. Also, those sources for Ice Cube playing Nu metal did not refer to any of the rapper's work as Nu metal. One did refer to his 1998 album as rap metal but remember rap metal isn't the exact same thing as Nu metal, it is just similar to Nu metal. The thing about Soulfly wasn't sourced and the thing about Deftones moving away from Nu metal wasn't sourced either. I'll try sourcing these things soon. For now, don't do anything to the Nu metal page. Statik N (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. There are a few things that aren't right. Either women, young women, or both, females is not right. A list is not a topic. Also under Characteristics, adding a sub-section of "Nu metal fashion" and putting relevant material from characteristics in the new sub-section of "Nu Metal fashion", "Fashions", Fashion" or something better if there is an idea. Those are a few things that will help. The sub-section doesn't have to happen but may be a few leagues more, Professional as far as an Article is concerned.

Also this "Trevor Baker of The Guardian wrote "Bands such as Linkin Park, Korn and even the much reviled Limp Bizkit also, incidentally, did far more to break down the artificial barriers between "urban music" and rock than any of their more critically acceptable counterparts. Their concerts also drew huge numbers of women, which is much more than you could say for any old-metal band."[33]" needs to be in the "2010s and slight comeback" minus the year and calling it "Revival", "Rebirth", "Continued Evolution" or something better if someone thinks of it such as "2010s-Continued Evolution" or titled in some other way.

....or....., in the Decline in popularity (mid–late 2000s), section like after "Mudvayne's 2005 album Lost and Found showed a change in the band's musical style.[120]" "In contrast, to the general decline "Trevor Baker of The Guardian wrote "Bands such as Linkin Park, Korn and even the much reviled Limp Bizkit also, incidentally, did far more to break down the artificial barriers between "urban music" and rock than any of their more critically acceptable counterparts. Their concerts also drew huge numbers of women, which is much more than you could say for any old-metal band."[33]". That section would fair better titled "2000's (Decline and Growth)", or perhaps "2000's (The Decline and Evolve)" those are some ideas.That can help.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have edited Binksternet's talkpage 28 times in less than two days, getting more and more aggressive with it. When you start to twit him about failing RFA two years ago, it's getting into harassment territory. Leave him alone. Stop making personal remarks and take discussion to article talkpages. Bishonen | talk 10:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

September 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Heavy metal music may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:29, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google docs

Please don't use references which are documents you uploaded to a web storage application such as Google docs. Per WP:RS, self-uploaded documents are not reliable. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "you" uploaded. I didnt upload anything. I also don't know what a "google doc" is. I did searches and found sources. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of creating references which are documents supposedly uploaded to a web storage application such as Google docs. I don't use applications I don't even have a cell phone. I didnt upload anything and I can show exactly what my searches are which will yield WAY More results than what I made in to HTML. Time to face the facts the band is Very Important. I even uploaded each reference 1 at a time so in case any weren't usable they could be removed with ease. I could have added them all at once. I wrote them out on a text edit page. Then copied them in. The band is Very Important. Very Important. A "web storage application" What, is that and why would I use it?

Binksternet, you may well be right, but please point at the edit where this happened. I think the "self-uploaded" thing has some complications and I'll be glad to have a look, but I need to know where to do it. In addition, this user and you seem to be in a bit of a spat and maybe some specifics can help iron this out. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, CombatMarshmallow. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hogan's Heroes (band), you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with; Im not involved with "products"
instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template); Im reporting this. Ive had enough. You are trying to roadblock honest editing.
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM); I don't have an organization.
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies. Anytime I accidentally do something wrong here and I am corrected I follow the rules.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a "company" or any of that.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats really "reaching" pretty far on this. Accurate editing is a neutral point of view. I don't "work" for any one, I do this in my free time. The band belongs where I put them, because they fit the criteria not because "I" want them to fit. Obviously sources back that up. No I didnt "create" any "materials. I can show what I searched for I did searches in some pretty effective ways. I guess the band that a few liked to say was "unimportant" 30 times, in edit summaries had more than about 3 though they would. I was surprised too. It was awesome to find and took forever to do the HTML.. First says I need "sources" which is fair, then accuses me of "Sock Puppet" then erases the band everywhere like they aren't what they are, then I find sources claims I "made" the sources. Whats next? I created wikipedia for my own use? This stuff makes wikipedia look bad. There are other pages I want to create. Im not done with this one until it has more photos and maybe a GA rating. Then I can move on. I usually eat all my food one part at a time too. all the corn, all the pork and beans, all the salad, all the roast beef. Its how I am.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Share this with your visitor. And turn the damn music down--you're driving your neighbors crazy. Drmies (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot. I got a smile out of that, the first one Ive had here at the site in days. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RSN and Wikipedia

I'm sorry that you're having a poor experience at Wikipedia. I can't speak to your experiences with other editors as I haven't looked into that at all, only the information you've brought to RSN. I'm also sorry if I've been short with you. But perhaps this will give you a little more insight into why we do what we do.

On RSN, it's expected that the editor who wants to use a source will provide the necessary information: information about the article (author and publisher details, for example), the context in which you would like to use the article, and so on. If the author has written elsewhere, you'll want to link to that. If the publisher is frequently cited by other sources, you'll want to link to those as well. (There's more about what we look for in sources at WP:V and WP:IRS) But the important thing is that the burden is on the editor who wants to add content to prove that it meets our policies and guidelines. If you know that the author has written for several music magazines, for example, it's in your own interests to mention it, because if nobody else finds that information with a Google search, they're going to consider that source unreliable.

Keep in mind that we're all volunteers here. It's not like we're being paid to do this, you know? I did look up the sources you provided and they simply didn't have the types of things we look for: Does the article have an author by-line, and is there an author blurb saying where else they've been published? Is there a masthead with editors and stated editorial policies? Editors often don't get blurbs, so can you Google the editors and see where else they've edited and written? Is the article self-published or vanity-published? Is there an about-us page with a physical address? Is there a user agreement, privacy policy, comment policy, and disclaimers, the normal "lawyer stuff"? Do they update articles, issue retractions, admit their errors? Is there a place to apply as a writer/contributor, but which makes it clear that applicants are expected to provide information about their previous writing experience? (In other words, it's an online or phone job interview.) And this one's the most important: can you search for the magazine and website and find numerous (dozens, hundreds, thousands) of other quality sources citing them, quoting them, reusing their content? Not every source is going to be The New York Times, of course, but there are literally thousands of sources worldwide that meet these types of requirements. Someone with little publishing experience writing a fanzine in their home will probably fail to meet any of the above, but that's not the type of source we're looking for.

At this point, if you feel that these sources are reliable, you should bring this kind of information to RSN. Continuing to insist that the sources are reliable without any evidence isn't going to win anyone over. Again, I'm sorry if I've been short but I hope you can understand where I'm coming from. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't see that you had written on my Talk page while I was writing this. Woodroar (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even do this right now. I wish I had a punching bag or that someone breaks in my door right now so I could vent this energy. You erased Chad Driscoll who wrote for Allmusic and wrote geezer Butlers Bio. Also I have access to Web Photos of the Rolling Stone bio that chad Driscoll wrote. Its the same Bio on Rhapsody. You erased Mark Prindle who has or still does FOX news music contributing. You erased discos when the whole wikipedia uses it. Including Will Malone Iron Maidens engineer or producer of their first release. Its not good for a page I created but its ok for everyone else. Awesome. You message seems nice but Ill have to read it again tomorrow. I guess cheers. see ya.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you have any questions tomorrow, let me know, no worries. Just a couple quick notes to your reply above:

Regardless of the author, where a source is published makes a difference. If an article is published in The New York Times, for example, we can assume that it's fact-checked and backed up by a team of lawyers. If that same NYT-published author self-publishes an article, we assess it differently. In the case of experts, we generally accept as reliable whatever they write within their area of expertise. But we should never use self-published articles as sources about other identifiable living persons per our biographies of living persons policy. (We can generally use self-published sources written by a person about themselves, as long as the claims aren't exceptional or self-serving, but that's not the case here.)

If you can point me to images of that Rolling Stone page or upload it somewhere like Imgur, I'd gladly reconsider. We consider RS preferable to a commercial site like Rhapsody, simply because there's little financial or promotional incentive. It's like sourcing the statement "this book is awesome!" to the publisher or Amazon.com. (I'm sure you'll find that somewhere on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't be there.) There may be other issues with including it, but like you said, it's late and my brain is turning to mush.

In any case, sorry again for the aggravation, and if you've got any questions tomorrow or in the future, feel free to let me know. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signing posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at WP:RSN, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CombatMarshmallow. I understand first hand how easy it can sometimes be to forget to sign your posts, but it does help others follow the discussion better when comments are properly signed and time stamped. I always try to double check that I've signed mine before clicking "Save page" just in case. It's an extra step, but it can help avoid confusion. - Marchjuly (talk) 03:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only two places

...that you may edit right now is this talk page and the thread that has been filed at COIN. Do NOT edit any other articles or take part in any other thread on WP until the issues at COIN are resolved or you will be blocked indefinitely. Certain questions must be answered first.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a sick relative I haven't had a chance to reply. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin that may be reviewing an unblock appeal, please notify me.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its clear all I have done is Build the encyclopedia. Its all in my edit history. I haven't even had a chance to reply to the false accusations. Im taking necessary time to reply properly. I still don't have time to reply and am not going to do so until my head is clear. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My question requires nothing more than a simple yes or no response. Repeating it here, for clarity and conciseness, are you saying that you have nothing to do with Hogan's Heroes or any other band that you've edited. Are you an impartial editor on everything you've been editing?
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have always been impartial.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you and have posted my proof at COIN.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where am I supposed to reply. When I felt I was partial to a band. I asked someone else. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mashaunix#Clean_up. My edit history speaks for itself. I spent 6 years gathering, borrowing and bookmarking references before I made the page. " If they were more than a regional minor band back when then they would have ended up in something like Hit Parader, Circus (magazine), Kerrang, etc. CombatMarshmallow has been trying to blow smoke up people's derrières." Back then almost no hardcore and metallic hardcore bands were in Kerrang and the like. The commercial time period after 1995 is when that stuff started happening. Even the Ramones were barely in Circus, if at all. I have Hogan's Heroes at Rolling Stone. Which is being uploaded to flickr that has the reference numbers on the bottom. An editor said If I could produce it the could end up re-adding the short bio. The same writer that wrote it Wrote Geezer Butlers short Rolling Stone Biography. Which I also collected. Back when I started their page I thought it would help if I said I was one of them. George Barberio was in Solace via what I heard in New Jersey in the early 2000s and references like this one found here https://www.flickr.com/photos/135973187@N04/?. The edit history at this page show Quality edits and I have I re-organized pages which still stand as good versions to this day. The pictures at flickr need re-uploading. Sorry for the confusion, also the youtube page is a band page. Just like was said. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this right here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Binksternet starting 04:37, 4 October 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-204)‎ . . Thrashcore ‎ (removing examples) (current) he cites sputnik as a source, it says Metalcore. Erases the Metalcore genre. Plenty of examples of this. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may file an appeal but from what you've written above, I would suggest that you read NOT THEM first as the focus of an appeal would concern your behavior and not others. "Back when I started their page I thought it would help if I said I was one of them." If we believe this then it would still indicate that you have been deceptive from the beginning. If you file an appeal then impartial admins may review your case.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 12:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good block, Berean Hunter. I've been dealing with this user while they edit through a separate IP address they edit through, and all that comes from it is POV pushing and disruptive editing. I would have indef blocked the IP if that were allowed, and blocked this account as well, but I did not find out they were one and the same until very recently. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Just for the record: I got two messages on my talk page, from two different IPs, that appear to be this same blocked user. [1][2] --MelanieN (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:RedArchives.jpeg

Thank you for uploading File:RedArchives.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CombatMarshmallow, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

ᴀɴᴏɴʏᴍᴜᴤᴤ ᴜᴤᴇʀ (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 23:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cnra34.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cnra34.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Hogan's Heroes.png

The file File:Hogan's Heroes.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unused, poor quality, redundant to cropped version at File:HOGAN live.png.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Breakoutessential.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Breakoutessential.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]