User talk:Dark lizard

December 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Static-X, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Landon1980 (talk) 02:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am making constructive edits, I'll kindly ask you to do the same.Dark lizard (talk) 02:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a well sourced genre from an infobox based on your own personal opinion is anything but constructive. Landon1980 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call that well sourced, more along the lines of badly mistaken.Dark lizard (talk) 02:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are seven sources for the genre nu metal. It doesn't matter if they are mistaken, they are well-known, reputable, reliable sources. See WP:V and WP:OR. I don't know how else to explain this to you, this is just how wikipedia works. We go by what the reliable sources say, not your opinion. I would hate to see either of you blocked, but what you are doing is vandalism. I may give each of you one more warning but after that the next step will be administrator intervention. Landon1980 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then please explain one thing to me, because I do believe I am quite confused and mistaken. Why do we bother defining music genres on wikipedia if we ignore them in favor of other sources? Just curious, and do please explain that to me. Maybe then I'll understand this whole issue better.Dark lizard (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I need to make sure you understand is that you will be blocked if you keep blanking sourced content. I am required to warn you before reporting you to an administrator. You are applying your own personal opinion to both Static-x and to the article on nu-metal. Verifiability and sourcing content are two of our core policies, we use reliable, third-party, published sources when citing content in the encyclopedia. Landon1980 (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you failed to answer a question I was having about wikipedia policy and editing process and instead continue to threaten me for something I stopped doing. So thanks for setting a good example for me the new user, instead of kindly educating others who have learned their error and are now requesting to learn why something is the way it is, you just keep threatening to ban them, good going.Dark lizard (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]