User talk:Daddy Kindsoul/Archive 1

3RR

You have been blocked for violation of the three-revert rule on Moi dix Mois for four days. I'm also going to take you to Request for Comment with Leyasu on Tuesday so we can stop this persistent edit war Sceptr e ^(Talk) 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Unblock, after admin violation of Wikipedia policies

You're not gonna get unblocked if you don't give a reason why you should be... --Rory0 96 00:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked on 23:36, 16 March 2006 (UTC) (as seen above) for violating the 3RR by User:Sceptre... WP:3RR states, "after your fourth revert in 24 hours (UTC), sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." those 24 hours have now passed... after emailing User:Sceptre, I have still not been unblocked.

This seems to be an abuse of admin powers and violation of Wikipedia policy. - Deathrocker 00:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been your 4th 3RR block, hence its valid, you are more than welcome to edit constructively when your block expires -- Tawker 00:50, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your 6th or 7th block for 3RR. Repeat offenders can get longer blocks. --Rory0 96 00:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it state that as a Wikipedia policy?... it doesn't mention such a thing in WP:3RR or blocking policy. It just says sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." - Deathrocker 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is at the discretion of the admin, again, just wait the 4 days. -- Tawker 01:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say its at the discretion of the admins though?? That is what I'm saying.

It does not mention such a thing in either Wikipedia:Blocking_policy or WP:3RR.. it just says up to 24 hours (which has already past), and states that as Wikipedia's official policy on the 3RR. It makes no mention of admins been able to impose more than that, infact it clearly states, "up to 24 hours". More than that is a violation of what is written there as the official policy. See my point? - Deathrocker 01:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After your outburst on IRC, an unblock is asking a little much -- Tawker 06:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are refering to what?.. please don't remove the tag until an admin has looked at the case, as User:Sceptre has clearly violated Wikipedia:Blocking_policy and WP:3RR - Deathrocker 06:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to someone using your nick calling me a "loser" -- Tawker 06:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't even know what "IRC" is.. so can you show me what/where you are meaning please? - Deathrocker 07:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

You've been engaging in a pattern of disruptive edits, and are attempting to game the system on 3RR. Admins are empowered to extend blocks for disruption, and Sceptre has done so. If the unblock template shows up here again, I'm giving you an extra week for disruption while we consider a permanent block on ANI. Essjay ^{Talk • Contact} 07:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Game the system how? Using common sense more like.

All I am requesting is that you show me where it says admins are allowed to hand out blocks for a 3RR violation for far longer time than is stated to be the limit in WP:3RR (something which you are clearly unable to do and by failing to do so are supporting a clear violation of WP:3RR officially stated policies.)

And for your information I was blocked for violating 3RR, which has a maximum limit of "up to 24 hours" acording to WP:3RR, it is a perfectly reasonable request... rather pathetic that you are threatening me for questioning something that clearly violates Wikipedia policy. - Deathrocker 07:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration

I am going to file a request for arbitration against you. I am not going to unblock you, however, if you need to make a statement, contact a third party. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC deleted

The RFC against you was not certified by two users within 48 hours of its creation and has been deleted. If you wish to retain a copy of the RFC, please email me. Stifle 11:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive talkpage

Please do not blank your talk page. Stifle 22:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

This page has been unprotected. Please note that further blanking may lead to more serious action being taken. Archiving the page is fine. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ley

The place to voice concerns about suspicions of parole violation is WP:AE. Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs) performed the most recent block and gave what appeared to be a final warning so he might also be interested if you have evidence of parole violation. Deizio 16:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, just 2 quick points - It should be made as an individual entry at the top of the page as the most recent alert, and it's usually de riguer not to mention sanctions ("pulling the plug") however obvious or well intentioned the suggestion ;) Cheers, Deizio 17:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Arbcom case.

Hey. I'm filing an AC case against you because you're acting incivil towards Leyasu, and the month-long block does not seem to have any effect. Please give a statement Will (^E_@) T 21:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you are being uncivil, and I'd like to remind you to be civil and not to create personal attacks or take part in edit wars. Will (^E_@) T 20:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I'm going to block you for 3 days or until the Arbitration case has been opened, which ever comes first. I am sick of you two arguing on my talk page, so just wait. Will (^E_@) T 10:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why does Ley tink im your sock? Thats messed up... --Michael 22:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Assistance Please

You're not going to get very far by demanding that I do things, but if you ask nicely then I or another admin would be more willing to help you. If another user is giving you trouble, report them on WP:AN/I or some related page and get a more disinterested admin to decide on how long to block people. I would prefer not to block anybody with whom I am in an arbcom case if at all possible.

I haven't seen anything suggesting that Leyasu is making personal attacks, aside from calling good-faith edits "vandalism" and consistently reverting them (a violation of WP:-( which may also be a personal attack, or it may be a violation of WP:OWN in some form or another). However, while these are still policy violations, you've also been violating policies through disrupting several pages (my talk page, Sceptre's talk page, WT:RFAR, and WP:RFAR) by arguing with Leyasu there, making incivil comments and personal attacks on me and Leyasu, and assuming bad faith.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 22:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm

Perhaps then, you would care to help myself and the other members of Ze Projecto rather than hinder us. Im going to change certain articles, which does include your edits, for reasons already stated on each article. If after, you want to discuss the edits, then start up conversation on their talk page, or contact me directly. Ley Shade 21:11, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 20:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Industrial rock was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 14:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It Aint Happening

I notice how youve waited until you think im banned from Wikipedia to go reverting all the changes i made to things. Realise this, me being banned isnt an excuse for you to go reverting me. The reason ive changed things again is because A) When providing sources they actually have to say what your trying to source, and B) Things need to be in accordance with Consensus and WP:NPOV.

We both know, that Coal Chamber have nothing at all to do with Goth Metal, and we both know that putting Extreme Metal in things both violates a consensus from the project you recently joined and is a neoglism, which isnt neutral.

Now in regards to the Extreme Metal thing, a better way to go would to be to point out that fans of Traditional Metal/Classic Metal AND Extreme Metal genres, typically are snide towards Nu Metal and Metalcore. Thats fair, and doesnt come across as A) Biased, B) A straw attack. Ley Shade 18:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, this comment was made from User:81.157.83.176, not from Leyasu's registered user account, User:Leyasu. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:30meegs.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:30meegs.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jkelly 22:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from Spammer

am concerned about what is wrong with myspace bands? Do you not consider them ligitimate music pages? I have recently noticed that large number of bands...300,000 and counting are on there. Do you consider a myspace band a sort of a leech of a larger organization? Also if there is a new genera that is blooming, what gives you the right to snuff it out...when there are writers that are wanting to make the public aware of these new subgeneras...The post goth page for example. it maybe a clearly undefined genera because it is in it's infancy. I don't understand why people that have the strong hand make decisions like this. The indie culture...is clearly undefined, but it is alive and breathing. This also violates our freedom of speech by censoring our actions. If you don't like the style of our writing...maybe you can help us to develop this...as you may have seen that space industrial is a brand new sub genera...and I have done my research...but the culture is not established but is evolving from the larger branch of industrial. How do you stop things that are in action? The glass projeckt is a band that I have been trying to write about...just so you know they have their own website. www.theglassprojeckt.com...This is a popular indie band...that is marketing themselves as space industrial but is also creating a culture of space industrial. This is a surrealism movement connected with art/rock...a larger movement is coming out of San Francisco with Start Mobile in the urban art underground, but if you keep censoring our efforts,no one will know about what is going on...from the world of wiki! You should stop and consider that music is evolving...and industrial - music is not going to stay the same forever...You should also be more kind and compassionate about new writers that are unfamiliar with the processes of WIKI...and be more helpful instead of guarding what you call real knowledge.

-Keodrah

Well, actually Im a writer trying to promote the post gothic and space industrial movement. The bands that I found were part of my research. I'm sorry that you look down upon myspace bands...perhaps credible website would be better sources for my research. Would it be better to write about post gothic culture with a small emphasis on music at this point? What do you feel about urban goth? Or is that not a writable genera. There are alot of references online to sources for urban-goth.

There is a space industrial genera whether you approve of it or not. -Keodrah

-Keodrah

Image Tagging for Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Spanoa

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Dimitri Spanoa, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have nominated the article for deletion instead; the debate may be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimitri Spanoa, which overrides the need for a {{prod}} tag. I have explained my reasons for doing this in my nomination. Thanks! (Note that WP:PROD specifically allows the creator of a page to contest its deletion by removing the prod tag.) Mango juice^talk 20:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban art movement/Spamoa

The author of all the Dimitri Spanoa articles created this one, too. The PROD-tag was removed, of course. I see that you took out the "Spanoa" mention, but does this movement actually exist as it's defined here? Google gives up lots of mentions of "urban art," but none of them seem to correlate to what's in the article. Joyous! | Talk 13:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a re-write, rather than removal, is what we need. However, I am perhaps the least qualified person on the planet to do this. Art and music genres, and the differences between them, make me shiver in fear. Joyous! | Talk 13:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are gnomes and trolls really that powerful...or is it just how you present yourself along these lines of battle? poor Dimitri(from the post goth pages )...is he really doing anything wrong? In defense against the Dark Arts...lol There is an even greater art music movement coming out of San Fransisco with Start Soma and Start Mobile. http://www.startmobile.net/mstore/startinc.nsf/about.htm these kinds of things were published in USA Today. and Moth is connected in with this movement as well as The Urban Art Underground Movement. What is wrong with helping to unite the underground as it seems these visionaries and thinkers are doing?

-Keodrah

attempting to promote Dimitri Spanoa? Well I am writing about him at the moment if that means promoting, I shall move on to other subjects soon.

Just wanted to notify you that the article Post goth which was recently deleted after your nomination for AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post goth has been recreated under the new title Post-goth. I've notified the Admin. User:Lightdarkness who made the final deletion of the Post goth article about this. Just figured you'd want to know.--Adrift* 15:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blah

Hi, why did you just revert my edits made in the workshop?...

"Enforcement by block Leyasu 2) Should Leyasu violate his revert parole he may be locked for up to a year. Blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Log_of_blocks_and_bans."

Is what you reverted it back too.. why would Leyasu's blocks be recorded in my log of blocks instead of his own already existing one? - Deathrocker 23:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had it the way I wanted it. If it passes It could be logged in either place, but rather have it in this case as that is where the action is. The choice is rather arbitrary. You should not change anyone's proposal on the /Workshop page; just make a comment. Fred Bauder 01:28, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:PromoEva.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:PromoEva.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use

policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Tim Skold

Hi, I'm just wondering why you reverted my edits to this article. I've posted this in the article's talk page:

Without altering the general information in this article, I cleaned up the numerous grammatical, phrasing, and chronology problems to give this version. My edit was reverted a couple days later. Why, might I ask? I don't believe I falsified any of the information of the previous edit.

I'll go ahead and change it back. Let me know if this is a problem. --buck 13:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would have just fixed the minor typo or clarified any info that I missed, rather than revert the entire revision. The current version is in English, yet it seems to have been written by someone unfamiliar with Engish grammar. This is what I was attempting to address. But I'll stay out of it from now on. Peace & plenty. --buck 18:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hmm

Wow; thanks for the heads up. This has been going on for about a week now; see this edit. I've also posted about this on WP:AE and Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. It's getting harder and harder to assume good faith about him; if the anons are merely impersonating Leyasu, that's unfortunate. But I'm pretty sure that they're really him.

I really wish that the arbcom would have passed some findings of fact about Leyasu's editing while blocked since it did also happen on an earlier, separate occasion; it really frustrates me that they're not putting more time into this case.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Motörhead

You know every time I see their "genre" change I'm tempted to replace whatever with "Really REALLY loud Rock 'n' Roll" ;) --Alf ^melmac 16:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha... that may be correct, I think that is how Lemmy himself refers to the band. - Deathrocker 16:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about edit summaries

Please try to avoid making harsh statements in edit summaries; these can be interpreted as personal attacks, whether intended or not. Ral315 (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reguarding your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence

As stated by the evidence page, do not remove or attempt to modify the evidence posted by other users in sections established by them. Kevin_b_er 03:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If yew want to get hold of me, drop a message on my Accounts talk page. If yew wanna discuss the arbcom case, do it on the arbcom cases talk page. If yew want to say something about me, drop it in your evidence. But do not vandalise my evidence or attempt to block me from posting it, because i will use it in my evidence in one manner or another. Leyasu1 03:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yew post in my evidence, thats vandalism. Your lucky im even considerate enough with yew to move it to your own evidence so that you can better organise it, rather than just delete it out right. Leyasu1 04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try looking at the top of the page; If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user. You vandalise my evidence, i will remove it. Understand? Leyasu1 04:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Import from User talk:Kevin Breitenstein

Hello, the user User:Leyasu is evading a three month block to edit the article, he had blanked by evidence on the page using an anon to cover his tracks, blocked users aren't allowed to edit articles as per blocking policy it stated such edits are viable for removal (plus I am reverting blanking) _ Deathrocker 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, take it to an admin or something, don't remove or modify what they've put, even if they've done it while banned. That's no better than their actions. I mean, yeah, they're banned. I can understand just speed-reverting stuff a banned user adds to a page(they're banned!), but insted your making modifications to what they've said as far as I could tell looking at history and the edit summaries. Thats one of those 'not a good idea' things. Esspecially not on an arbcom case on yourself. There's lots of admin noticeboards and whatnot to take this to. Kevin_b_er 04:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threat by Leyasu using an anon

Warring

Seriously, you might want to stop warring with me. Ive showed yew time and time again people do not win wars with me. And remember this, im violatin policys to prove a point. Your violating them and digging yourself a deeper hole. Ill offer yew this advice one more time, dont let my actions denote yours; yew have a problem with what i do, try talking about it on my talk page - coz warring with me is going to achieve yew nothing, as yew act like me being banned from using an accout on this thing is the end of my world, it isnt. 04:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC) Ley Shade while blocked using 86.132.135.23

Go for it. But i fail to see how me telling you to not violate policys is threatening you. No matter, i already noted in my evidence that you changed what i put to attempt to incriminate me as doing something i didnt do. Its nice how you cant touch that, isnt it. 86.132.135.23 04:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to leave me a new Message!

Re: Workshop page on the RfAr

Hey, I just saw your most recent comments there. I've asked the arbitrators several times to pass a measure against Leyasu's block evasion, like limiting Leyasu to one account (which is what they did for Jason Gastrich, who is now an indefinitely banned user). It doesn't look like they'll do anything, though. I guess the only way to do that is to have Tony Sidaway file a separate motion for it after the case is concluded; he did tell me that he would go for a complete ban if Leyasu kept violating his revert parole and evading the blocks. From the looks of it, I don't think Leyasu will stop evading blocks any time soon; so I wouldn't be surprised to see Tony post a motion to ban on the main WP:RFAR page after the case concludes (that is, if Leyasu sticks around and keeps evading the block, edit warring, and so on). The RfAr will probably close pretty soon, since five of the arbitrators have voted on the suggestions that Fred posted in the beginning, and that's all they need for a majority since the other arbitrators are away or inactive. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

of interest to you...perhaps?

FYI...Go here and cast your vote. Fair Deal 04:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker

This arbitration case is closed and the decision has been published at the link above. I'm announcing this as a clerk. I took not part in the decision. --Tony Sidaway 04:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam message from Bot: Your edit to S.S.C. Napoli

Your recent edit to S.S.C. Napoli (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 21:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, please refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Roy A.A. 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Mallgoth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mallgoth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for unblock

Hello, I think a mistake has been made... I've been blocked for "vandalising" but haven't vandalised. [1].

On the S.S.C. Napoli there was some technical problems, the team had recently changed their name from Napoli Soccer back to S.S.C. Napoli and I was trying to red-direct the article...

But it wasn't working properly, another user had attempted to re-direct it too earlier but to no-avail CapPixel as the history shows. [2] He had also requested somebody re-direct it on the Napoli Soccer talkpage [3]... I managed to sort the article out now, but a confused admin seems to have blocked me? These were legit edits I'd like to be unblocked please, and an apology from the blocking admin (Royboycrashfan) for the mistake would be appreciated. - Deathrocker 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request accepted. Roy A.A. 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the request is accepted could you unblock me now please? - Deathrocker 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hi Deathrocker! Thanks for your recent interest in the AfD of the 2006 World Cup controversies article. Your input is most appreciated. Since the AfD is now closed and the World Cup almost over, I'd like to encourage you to put some input into the improvement of this article, either by improving where you think you can, or by suggesting changes on the talk page. Kind regards, MyNam e IsNotBob 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

block

You have been blocked for violating your revert parole on template:heavymetal. The IP range from which the edits came has also been blocked for 24 hours. Circeus 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this message is directed at Circeus, who was bullied by a blocked user Leyasu who was using a sock into blocking me. [4]

I haven't violated revert restrictions as claimed; ... if you look, I only twice removed edits from a blocked user who was using a sock [5][6] (the user admits the sockpuppetry here)... it states in the Official Wikipedia policy that removing edits made by blocked users who are using sockpuppets is an exception and isn't a counted revert. Thus I am requesting that the wrongful block be lifted.

- Deathrocker 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked you. I wasn't quite aware at the moment that Leyasu was fully blocked. Sorry for the trouble. Circeus 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... thanks. Its an easy mistake to make I suppose. - Deathrocker 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not used to doing this, and I admit problems keeping track of who is blocked for what and from what. Circeus 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, the unblock doesn't seem to have worked... I can still only edit my talkpage. - Deathrocker 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. It is ogged properly [7]. Circeus 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thats better... the unblock has worked now. :) - Deathrocker 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden

Come on. "Jake D likes Cheetos"? That belongs in a wikipedia entry? --Zach Hammond 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:X-hide4.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:X-hide4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ShakiraRipoll cropped.jpg

This image is indeed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. Flickr pages state the image licensing at the right column on the page. If you look closer in the source link, you will be able to find a link that reads "Some Rights Reserved" (instead of the more common "All Rights Reserved"). The (mini) Creative Commons at the left of this text will link to the Attribution-Sharealike license text. Didn't you find that strange that there a were a lot of discussions on the talk page about the image and still no one never questioned the image license validity? Anyway, no one has the obligation to know the inner workings of Flickr.

Now, with your due permission, I'm reverting back the article for the version with the free image, and also marking the unfree image as obsolete again. Let me know if you still have any difficulties. Best regards, --Abu Badali 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Reply

OK... I see where it says that now, sorry for the miss-understanding. Using Flickr I will look for a more appropriate image however (which carries the same licensing as the other one).... as it is pretty clear via community concensus that people would like a different image, hopefully this aproach should sort it out. Regards. - Deathrocker 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great. But if you find a good image that is tagged as All Rights Reserved, send a nice message to the owner asking him to release his image under a free license ("Attirbution" or "Attribuition-Sharealike"). Tell him about this marvelous thing that Wikipedia is and how it's contents must be free, etc... Believe me, people usually like the idea of having their image used on Wikipedia. See this list of images I've get from flickr after contacting the owner and asking for a free licensing.

But be carefull of copyrights violantion in Flickr. Take a look at the owner's profile to make sure he is a real photograper, and not just someone uploading files from some Website. I once commited the mistake to upload this image into Commons, as it's tagged as "Attribution" in flickr. It came out to be a copyright infringment of GettyImages, and it was deleted.

Well, good look with your search! Best wishes, --Abu Badali 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hummm, It seems that you did it. The image Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg unfortunatelly is a copyright violation from the Flickr user part. You may have missed it but, at the image's bottom right we still can read "Patrick Cooper/Retna Ltd". Patrick Cooper is a professional photographer, and Retna Ltd is a photo agency, i.e., a company that makes a living by licensing photos for a fee. The Flickr user Carlos Almendarez seems to be a diferent person than Mr. Cooper, and it's very unlike that his has anything to do with Retna. The picture name on Flickr, "Shakira_JPC_10" is probably making a mention to James Patrick Cooper. And as an last evidence, contrary to what happens to most photos of this Flickr user ([8],[9].[10],[11] to name the just first ones on his page), the Shakira image do not contains EXIF data.

I suggest you mark the image as {{imagevio}} and restore the free image to the Shakira article. I urge you no to feel disapointed and still keep trying to find a better free image for the article. As you said, it's the consensus that we need a better one. Let me know of anything in which I may be helpfull. Best regards, --Abu Badali 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be busy. I have put the free image back, as some user had already replaced your with an untagged one. You should still, as soon as you can, ask for the deletion of the Retna image. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of RFD Tags

Please do not remove RFD tags, as you did with Mallgoth. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a redirect. If you oppose the deletion of a redirect, you may comment at the respective page instead. This particular nomination has been closed as a keep and the redirect will not be deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

your quote: "Strong Keep... two entirely different forms of music which there have long been problems and disputes about the two being stuffed into the same article[1], would support renaming to Californian Pop punk or something similar. - Deathrocker 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" what are the two different forms of music? as i see it there is punk and then there is pop punk.. i dont think there is any evidence or substantiation of "pop punk revival" as i see it pop punk has not died out yet, so there is nothing to revive. punk was basically done in 78/79.. but does still live on... however "true punk" is from before 1980.. yet dont forget that hardcore first mean "hardcore punk"... every band wants to claim their authenticity over the punk namesake... sheesh Xsxex 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 21:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:RicardoGardner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RicardoGardner.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Pop punk

Deathrocker, hey man, if you want to change something in the article i've been merging and reworking as decided by the discussion on talk:pop punk (revival) please add those comments in the talk:pop punk page so we can add them appropriately.. minor changes are fine to make on the actual article but the paragraph you rewrote has only added a few points. One point you added which we had decided was that infact The Ramones and other original punk rock groups can't be defined as pop punk but they can be described as pop punk. There will be a section which addresses the difference between the definition and the description in the page. However to state it here, a pop punk band must reference the original punk groups and the trends in contemporary music so therefore, this excludes the original punk groups. Let me know if you agree with this or if you have other thoughts on the issue. Xsxex 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your messages and respond to what i've written to you. Also read talk:pop punk before making any significant changes. Thanks Xsxex 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we already discussed this, the original punk rock bands were the pioneers but they CANT be called pop punk because they are DEFINED as punk rock. SOME of them can acurately be DESCRIBED as pop punk. The sources your have provided all use the term "pop punk" to describe either bands or more often specific songs (as in the case with the usage of "pop punk" on The Rezillos source.) As it seems, a band can only have one DEFINING genre, but many DESCRIPTIVE styles. This distinction between "definition" and "description" was brought to the conversation by Jmabel at the bottom of the talk:pop punk (revival) page. This is a significant distinction and i hope that it is one that you find acceptable. I have used this to reorganize the list of pop punk bands. Let me know if you think this is a step in the right direction. Xsxex 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Butt.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Butt.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden

The neutrality of the article is disputed. ~~I recommend leaving the pov tag or getting rid of the detractor section~~ (I've editted it since writing this). I'd really like to avoid an edit war, I'm really not about that. --Zach Hammond 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:FDQStudio14.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FDQStudio14.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:VandalismCorrecter

Personally, I think you were right about this user. [12] [13]. I noticed VandalismCorrecter's user name (which is rather suspicious anyway, for a new user who's reverting edits that are not vandalism) on a few pages on my watchlist recently. A lot of the gothic metal pages are still on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on the situation through that. If that user continues to give you trouble, consider posting about it on WP:AE. It may be too late for a checkuser since Leyasu has been blocked for a while. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden

Please stop the edit war on this page. Until the issue is resolved on Talk:Aiden, stop editting it. Without linking to the article on Horror Rock, or explicitly calling Aiden's genre Horror Rock, mentioning that the band calls themselves Horror Rock (as the article did before your last edit) is a fair, factual compromise. --EndlessVince 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOFX introduction

I see you have reverted my edit of the NOFX introduction. I don't see why. The current introduction does not do justice with the band. The genre specification (skate/ska punk) is obviously incorrect (At least in my opinion), and summing up the band by saying they "use a lot of comedy" is just plain wrong. I hope you reconsider, the current introduction just does not look good. Ido50 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outsider opinion: it looks to me like most of the content would have been fine, if it were cited. But it wasn't. --EndlessVince 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I used the following sources: * NOFX history on their official website * Punk ideology here on wikipedia. * Biography on nofxwiki.net. Citing them wouldn't be a problem...--Ido50 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roadstar

Nice to see an article on this great band. I dabed The Answer to point to the band, and made a redirct at Hurricane Party to point to the article too. Nice work. exolon 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakiraaa.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pop punk intro sentence

Deathrocker, i think we have this relatively established, if you feel we need a footnote there, (which i agree, would be ideal) than maybe help do some research or come up with a better intro sentence. thanx. Xsxex 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

You have been blocked for one week for this personal attack. You are well aware that Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks. --Yamla 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that considered a "Personal attack"?, that is the person who put the hostile note on there which went against community consensus in the first place[14], the side note merely make clear which user to take it up with. I suggest you learn what a personal attack is.

Second learn the Wikipedia policy, if it is considered a personal attack, then I request to be unblocked as you are not following the proper policy stated here, it says that only in extreme cases is a block aplicable under disruption, this is not an extreme case and in no way warrants a week block, and you did not even give a warning first, this was merely me going by community conesus[15] and was hardly a scathing comment.

Also, Yamla (talk · contribs) made a false statement in the line for reasons blocked, he stated "Continued personal attacks"... when this was the only incident, it seems he is new to adminship, but he should learn the Wiki policies before taking any action. - Deathrocker 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly about personal attacks. Are you trying to claim that you did not understand that personal attacks were inappropriate? This account has a history of bickering, disruption, revert warring, etc. Now, if you can provide some reason for me to believe you will start acting in a civil manner and will refrain from actions of these natures, I would consider unblocking you. --Yamla 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me diffs where I have been warned about person attacks relatating to this incident?, you aren't following the correct Wikipedia policy plain and simple. And as for reasons regards "refraining from actions of revert warining, or any breaking of policy", check the dates on my block log history... the history of "revert warring" was from a long time ago. thanks. - Deathrocker 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't warned about this incident. This should not be necessary as you have been warned about personal attacks before. --Yamla 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to explain how the note was a "personal attack", as described here?... and in any case, if it somehow slimly managed to count as a "person attack" it is not "extreme" and is certainly not warranting a block (let alone a week block), the extreme cases are the time a block should be applied acording to that policy. I have absolutely no problem adhereing to civlity in the future, it would just be nice if admins knew the policy before they handed out blocks in the first place, see what I'm saying?. - Deathrocker 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you have been unblocked because of your promise to remain civil in the future, though I dislike your attempt at wikilawyering here. --Yamla 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

By the way, the Werdnabot can auto-archive pages for you if you wish. I find it easier than archiving by hand. Let me know if you want more information. --Yamla 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. I've taken an interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk. Also, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakiraaa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Impersonation

I write to inform you that somebody is impersonating you wit this edit [[16]] from this ip: 207.179.133.131. However if it is you please log in. so as to avoid confussion. Best Regards -- Angelbo 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint filed at WP:AE

A Leyasu sock has filed a complaint against you at Arbitration enforcement. While I am not inclined to recommend action at this point, it does look like you have edited while logged out from several different IP address including 156.34.142.158 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 207.179.133.131 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 216.21.150.44 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It certainly gives the impression that you are trying to hide something. Perhaps there is an innocent explanation? Thatcher131 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning pop punk ^{[citation needed]} tag

Deathrocker, Ok, when you explained it like that it helps to understand what you've looking for. Here's what my response is; while it is true that the majority of the "contemporary pop punk" bands draw much more from mid 90s pop punk, this article is not only about them. The article is about pop punk and since it is the bands from the early 80s (Descendents to Vandals to Weasel to Green Day etc, etc,)... the introduction applies most strongly to them, which makes sense because, one could say, they are the "original pop punk bands." Also most of the bands from the "Independent pop punk" section will also continue to draw from the original punk rock groups. It is these bands which are basically the bands which can be defined as pop punk, whereas the "Contemporary pop punk" groups are actually combining pop punk with other musical influences, many of which are coming from pop music. The reason they can be mentioned here is because since they are referencing the original pop punk bands (i.e. Green Day, Offspring, Descendents, Weasel, Queers, etc...). One would think that a band which draws from or is a descendent (no pun intended) of the original pop punk bands would have the potential to be considered, at least, in part as pop punk. This is actually the case as many of these newer bands are described, in part, as pop punk. Usually their sound is also combined with other musical genres, influences, and styles. I am going to take down the ^{[citation needed]} tag, but I DO want to continue this discussion if you feel or if others feel that this is not a convincing counterpoint. Post responses below right here. Thanx! Xsxex 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MCR- Not Goth?

Why did you delete my bit on My Chemical Romance? I think that the dressing in black and make-up thing with their image, in addition to the death-based lyrics, are a stereotypically goth thing. What makes you disagree? Not having a go at you or anything, just wanted to know your motives Valkyrie Missile

Yeah, I understand that, music-wise I think they're more post-hardcore than anything. But I really do think their image is goth. I mean, they wear nothing but black & red, they wear lots of make-up, they always appear angry/depressed. You don't think that's typical of Goth culture?

Yeah, admittedly it's not the same as Goth culture in the 1980s but, come on, musical genres and cultures change in 20-odd years! Just cause MCR aren't The Cure or whatever, doesn't mean they're not Goth in a modern sense.

Sockpuppet

Whats this leyasu sock puppet thing? I'm actually not a 'meat puppet' either, as I contacted Leyasu about the article first. Unless, of course, you can figure out a reason why leyasu would create a sockpuppet to discuss optical fibre articles... Fred138

Wayne Hall

I am trying to disambiguate links to the Hatfield page - but I'm afraid I know nothing about football. Did Wayne Hall play for Hatfield Town F.C. in Hertfordshire, or Hatfield Main F.C. in Doncaster? Thanks CarolGray 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOFX

I wasnt critisizing the choice of skate punk or punk rock genre, just that the ska genre doesnt apply to NOFX as a "defining" genre. I just put Punk Rock as the most generic genre, seeing skatepunk as a subgenre as long as skapunk etc. --Against 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A7X

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but please note that major edits marked as minor will set off many an automatic revert in anti-vandal programs! HawkerTyphoon 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

#9 on WP:FUC

Hi, Deathrocker. Please, remember that according to item #9 on WP:FUC, we can't claim fair use when using images outside of articles. Best regards, --Abu Badali 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu Badali 08:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove this template again. Regardless of your feelings on the validity of it, removing templates is vandalism, and if you do it again, it will be dealt with accordingly. --InShaneee 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:CreepsPromo2006.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CreepsPromo2006.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Casper2k3 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VampireFreaks.com

Please stop reverting the article and participate in the discussion in the talk page. --Neurophyre^(talk) 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden...

Let's talk about the best way to mention the Horror Rock issue on the Aiden article. I really don't think your latest edit sounds NPOV. I think it sounds somewhat persuasive, which isn't necessary. Also, what was objectionable about my edit that you reverted? I believe it said the same thing, only made the article sound more informative than persuasive. An informative edit summary when things are changed would be helpful in these situations. Your thoughts? --EndlessVince 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A7X Page

It's not relevant. You make the fact that their touring with a metalcore band a bad thing.

Also, they've cancelled all tours after October, if you would have read my post that replaced yours.

Please reply!

Please don't ignore my posts on your talk page. Maybe you overlooked it the first time. I asked why you reverted my edit to the Aiden article. My original post on your talk page: Let's talk about the best way to mention the Horror Rock issue on the Aiden article. I really don't think your latest edit sounds NPOV. I think it sounds somewhat persuasive, which isn't necessary. Also, what was objectionable about my edit that you reverted? I believe it said the same thing, only made the article sound more informative than persuasive. An informative edit summary when things are changed would also be helpful in these situations. --EndlessVince 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Message from a vandal

File:Stop hand.svl

Please stop edit warring on articles, without discussing your points on the talk page first, this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Evenfiel 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aiden

It is highly debatable if that band play that style of music (compare them to any of the other bands in the genre, they have nothing to do with them or their style).. it needs to be emphasised that they are not somehow part of that scene or even accepted amongst it, rather they are among the metalcore, post hardcore and other Warped Tour affilated bands and fan bases. Also some anon keeps vandalising the article changing their genre to things that don't exist, not sure why. - Deathrocker 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the nuisance genre-vandalism. But the phrase "highly debatable" carries a biased connotation (as does or even). I agree on the fact that Aiden isn't Horror Rock, but letting the facts speak for themselves works, in this case, to portray the truth that their genre is in fact not Horror Rock. No special emphasis is necessary, when the facts spell out the truth well enough. Again, please reply. --EndlessVince 03:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating your 1RR parole regarding Encyclopedia Metallum. I am also looking into the actions of other editors. Thatcher131 02:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replyed

As the admin said, "knock it off, ok?"Evenfiel 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article to which I reverted to is pretty much the same article that you wrote before being blocked. If you don't agree with it, I'll have to report you for breaking your parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopaedia_Metallum&diff=77966200&oldid=77953149 this is both your and mine edit combined. If we can't agreed on everything, you'll have to give something and I'll do the same. Evenfiel 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll report you.Evenfiel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you'll have to explain that to them. Evenfiel 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you'll have to explain that to them, not me. Evenfiel 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Warning: You have violated your revert parole on Encyclopaedia Metallum with these edits [17] [18] [19]. If you revert the article again, you will be blocked for 48 hours.

I am in agreement with Tony Fox's comment on the administrators' noticeboard [20] that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. You are arguing over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. Evenfiel is not simply blanking the Led Zepplin section, he is rearranging the content and trimming it, but leaving the essential fact [21]. As a content dispute you are expected to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a compromise. If you can not compromise, you should seek outside comment through a request for comment or third opinion. You are not permitted to simply revert to your preferred version, and calling a content dispute "vandalism" is not appropriate. I could have blocked you without warning, as you were just blocked 2 days ago for the same thing and you are well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a last chance to figure this out without taking the relatively drastic, but sometimes necessary, step of blocking you. Thatcher131 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Hello Deathrocker! I noticed you've been adding the {{talkheader}} template to many pages. I wanted to call your attention to the Template:Talkheader page, which states that "This template should be used only when needed.... If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced." However, you have added this template to some pages that seem (to me) somewhat small and uncontroversial (Jean Fabre, Valentine Dencausse, Nicolas Desmarets, Geoffrey Dauphy, etc.). I was wondering about your rationale on these, and pages like these in general. Thanks a lot! Dar-Ape 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages tag

Hello again! I see you've archived my previous message, meaning you've read it. I would really like to hear from you about this. If, however, you do not explain why you chose do add the {{talkheader}} template to many pages that did not seem to need it, I may consider these as going against current Template:Talkheader policy and revert your changes. Hope I can discuss this with you! Thanks, Dar-Ape 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leyasu

Leyasu is editing under the block(as you are more than aware) as Fred138 (talk · contribs). You tagged that user quite a while ago and I have attempted to monitor the user's edits. I rv'd "Fred" last night on the List of gothic metal bands article(twice). I reported him(her) to WP:ANI as well but sometimes that place can get backlogged and small time trolls like Leyasu slip through the cracks. I can't rv the list article anymore without going 3RR. I know you are under scrutiny on your own rv's but if you could take a look at that article, or even throw a comment over at ANI it would be a great help. Thanks! Fair Deal 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject:Italian Football

Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for sticking up for me in the deletion pages to Abu. I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on talk pages

I'm just letting you know I have begun to remove the template {{talkheader}} for the reasons I have already explained. If you have any objections, don't hesitate to let me know! (This will be the last time I talk to you about this if you do not contact me.) Dar-Ape 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of heavy metal bands

Hi Deathrocker,

I just reverted your recent modifications to the list of heavy metal bands. Please don't be offended, I didn't mean it in a bad way. I just think that we should have some kind of discussion before doing such a major rewrite. Your format was good, but I think that something is lost in the change. There are a certain number of bands which, unfortunately, don't fit nicely into a single genre. Take Cradle of Filth for example; it keeps getting added and removed from the list of black metal bands. At least, no one could argue about it being in the list of heavy metal bands. The same thing applies to a vast number of bands, famous and less so.

I really liked your summary format, however a lot of that information can already be found at Category:Metal subgenres (alright, in a less polished style, and maybe not quite as accessible to new users). But if in the list of heavy metal genres there was a link to the band lists as well as the main article, this problem would be solved. As to the "original movement", most of that info can be found on the heavy metal music article (although not in list form).

On the other hand, there is no single article, category or list that lists all of the bands pertaining to the heavy metal genre. This information is therefore lost by your recent changes.

I guess the two formats could co-exist in the same article (maybe that would look a bit messy), or there could be two articles: a 'disambiguation' kind of article (your format) and a 'complete' list (the old format). This sounds like a reasonable middle ground to me. What do you think? IronC hris | (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48 hour block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violations of WP:NPA. Durov a^Charge! 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user I was blocked for so called violation of WP:NPA against Panarjedde (talk · contribs), has being severly testing the patience of myself and that of other users such as User:Kingjeff. Not only has he being adding inapropriate tags to images to wind people up,[22][23], making alterations to my user page which I did not permit,[24][25] mocking me & my beliefs, on my talkpage in Italian[26] he has also made a personal attack, calling me a "coward".[27]... How is it acceptable that I am blocked when I was the one who was provoked and attacked in the first place, by a user who has a recent history of similar antics?[28] - Deathrocker 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potential bad faith

To the deciding admin, You might want to look at if this was a bad faith report from Panarjedde. I know this might not be unreasonable to think. Kingjeff 02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block

I left a message with the blocking admin. I told him he should review his decision more closely regarding Panarjedde complaint as we both know what he's all about. Kingjeff 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.. its apreciated. - Deathrocker 02:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coward remark is a big dent into his credibility. I think this directly shows that my claims about his bad faith are true. Kingjeff 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmoves (band)

This was a non-notable band as per the criteria set out in WP:Music. Perhaps Myspace is a better location for this information. (aeropagitica) 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

Tu quoque is not an acceptable excuse...someone else behaving badly or testing your patience does not excuse your own behaviour or give you a "pass" to violate NPA. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. If you wish to make a stronger case of appeal or respond further, you may do so here. I now have your page watchlisted and I will come back and review your case again. However, if your appeal is simply that the other party was behaving badly as well, then I'm afraid I will have to decline your unblock request and I'd suggest you use the block time to have a break and return when you feel you're able to edit within policy. .-- Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

OK... so what you're saying is, one set of rules for one user... an entirely different set for another. If a user (in this case Panarjedde (talk · contribs)) decides to follow me around, winding me up... and violates the NPA policy (as I proved above with diffs). That is perfectly acceptable?.. no block for him. But if in retaliation I (barely) violate NPA.. then I get a blocked slapped on me?... how is this equal? - Deathrocker 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is one set of rules for everyone. What I am saying is that your statement that you made personal attacks because of the other user's behaviour does not exempt you from policy on personal attacks. The other user's behaviour is a whole different ball game. If the other user stalks, harasses you and violates NPA, then there are procedures you should follow and they don't include launching into personal attacks of your own. There are policies and guidelines in place to protect you from harassment stalking etc., some of the ones that sound like they are relevant to you are: guidelines against harassment and stalking, policy on civility and personal attacks.

Can you tell me from your point of view what happened that lead to your being blocked? You say that you "barely violated NPA" can you please expand on this further. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Youcan help me overturn his deletion of my image that our good buddy got deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 9. Kingjeff 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, with regard to the images, it looks like it was deleted as a matter of policy, in which case there is nothing that I can do about it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I brought your block up with them on PAIN and they say it is influenced by your past record. I don't have any experience on that forum so I am defering to what they say. If you want someone to review that other person, I think you should write your own report with diffs and post it here. You should be very careful in future or you are going to end up being blocked constantly. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've invited Kingjeff to post a report at WP:RFI. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection

Putting a protection notice on a page does not protect it. That can only be done by an admin and there is not enough vandlism on that page to warrent protection. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sourced material"? Just because something is written on the internet doesn't mean its accurate (especially when the band itself shows its inaccurate). Try researching a subject BEFORE thinking you're qualified to write about it. The text you keep posting is WRONG. What don't you understand about this?

Again, lies written online do not constitute valid sources. And why do you keep ignoring what I write? I have repeatedly urged you to research this stuff yourself rather than some bogus quick purusal of some ex-live member's page (a guy known to be dishonest)? Check the LAM Online community. Everything I say is there direct from Sean and LAM live members themselves. That, along with the LAM website, are my sources.

Blocked

Blocked: 48 hours for violating your 1RR parole imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. I know there are some problems with Blipblip's edits, but that doesn't justify a parole violation. Sorry. I'll comment to all sides on the article talk page. Thatcher131 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that at the end of October you violated the 1RR parole on Aiden, Mallcore, and The Black Parade.[29] I intended to block you then but got distracted and by the time I came back I figured the moment had passed. That, plus this [30] comment just after a block for personal attacks were factors in my choice of 48 hours rather than 24. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual misinformation on the LAM page

Deathrocker- So much of your information is wrong. Why do you insist on editing pages if you know nothing about the subject? Stop editing the LAM page. Not only have you destroyed the bio which had been posted today, your info amounts to a bland recital of tour dates and CD releases (which are inaccurate and incomplete). You refuse to understand that LAM is Sean Brennan and the live members are ONLY LIVE MEMBERS and should be referred to as such if you insist on listing them. Your propaganda about Covet has been refuted by Areklett himself (search the LAM myspace group and the LAM Online Community for proof of this), if you'd only bother to research this you'd know it. Why yuou don't bother to actually research a reputable source is beyond me. The Cure are not an influence, no one ever claimed they were. Your mistakes go on and on. You don't know what you're talking about so why pretend that you do?

Your continual misinformation on the LAM page part 2

Listen, I actually know the band so I know the history. You don't I am not arguing date of formation or who played in the live line up when. I suggest you re-read everything I have written with an open mind rather than being so mindnumbingly confrontational and maybe you'd get my point. You refuse to listen to my words. You seriously need to actually READ what I say and understand it. I have provided an interesting and informative bio today which you destroyed for the tired thing YOU ripped from Yahoo (who got their info from Allmusciguide). For example- why cite the Polish magazine as a reference that LAM was part of the goth scene? You totally missed the point with that and missed a fairly major aspect of LAM's life by editing out what many magazines have claimed- that LAM helped to revive goth in the US. Also, LAM's Psycho Magnet was written and being performed live in 1993, long before Manson ever became popular. You really have no concept of this band and are not qualified to be writing about them. Your page amounts to a recital of tour dates. My bio had some interesting things on how the media views LAM and some factual information. In no way was I trying to present an "LAM is great" page. I was speaking fact. Your bio has wrong information and irrelevant information. Mine doesn't since I WORKED for the band and know the history. Why not leave this to people who actually know what they are talking about?

Your continual misinformation on the LAM page part 3

Live music is different than what's on record? Yeah- because one is live, and one is recorded. What's your point? And LAM is essentially an occasional recording project, not a full time live band, otherwise there would have been much more extensive touring and real band members who contribute to the band.

I never claimed LAM was industrial. YOU were the one who claimed something along those lines and then implied LAM was jumping on a bandwagon. The fact is LAM's music from Psycho Magnet was being performed live as early as 1993 (before Manson was known outside Florida). Also, read this from "LEGENDS magazine (USA) 1998: "considering that LAM has been around longer than Marilyn Manson and Psychotica, its clear who's ripping off who". Why didnt you know this? If you think you're qualified to edit these band pages then you should have all the facts and stop inserting personal opinion. The fact that you added your opinion implying that LAM was jumping on a Manson bandwagon when I've cited a source that says the opposite shows you just aren't doing research OR want to write negative things. (BTW- I could easily inform you that Manson came to see LAM perform at Helter Skelter in 1992. But I have no online source for this, except my own eyes).

See I am the one who is adding unbiased third party information to the discussion. I have done so repeatedly. You are continually adding your own opinion (then you claim I am the one trying to write a biased article when I'm not, but you're doing the opposite in that you are willingly using misinformation and pesonal opinion). You clearly are NOT reading what I write which is likely why you keep getting banned and are always in arguments with people. I mean, is that fun to you?

You are simply not as informed as you think you are. The info you have was originally ripped off the LAM website! It was butchered by AllMusicGuide "Gothic Beauty Magazine, USA, Autumn 2005 issue" and re-distributed to every online bio source (like the Yahoo one you referenced). Your bio is nothing but a regurgitation of an old version of the band's website bio page that was taken out of context and messed up by allmusicguide "Gothic Beauty Magazine, USA, Autumn 2005 issue". Its bland, tour dates and nothing more. Then you add in weird stuff about the Cure being an influence, about LAM not being poitical (ignoring the 1991 song Revenge and history of LAM's literature) about Tamlyn, etc... This is meaningless to anyone who wants to know what LAM actually IS. My bio illustrated what LAM actually IS.

See my point here is that you just aren't listening and think that being pointlessly negative or refusing to correct misinformation is the proper way to write. Its not. Your commentary and critique is uninformed is baseless. I'm surely not the smarmy one here.

The fact is I have provided you with all the info you need (you refuse to acknowledge this). I have told you where to find the information you seek. If you're too lazy to do this then don't pretend to be qualified to edit the wiki page. Since you wanted to get involved in this its YOUR responsibility to fully research a subject prior to editing any wiki page. Repeating lies you've heard or writing out personal opinion or assumption and then asking that they be debunked is not only doing things backwards but totally unprofessional.

And you are the one who can't back up what you claim with credible sources (like fans being upset, LAM ripping off Manson, Tamlyn forming LAM with Brennan, etc, etc). See the LAM website and LAM Online COmmunity if you need some factual information. . You seriously need to actually read what I say and understand my objections.

Part 4

1. As I said most of Psycho Magnet was being performed live as early as 1993 (and several songs were released in 1994 on tape- see official discography on LAM site). Were you unawre of this? I guess you were. So why do you feel qualified to say anything about the band being that you have so few facts? Being that you are saying that industrial NIN/Manson type bands peaked in 96 LAM was ahead of the curve, right? I mean 1993 is 3 years before 1996, right? The point was you were implying LAM was jumping on a bandwagon. If you knew the history and some facts you'd know this wasn't the case. Perhaps it was your wording and you didn't intend it like that. But that's how it read. Seriously - your writing is not very good.

2. You said LAM were part of the "club scene". LAM was not part of the CLUB scene. LAM was and remains a popular draw at clubs, but was and is not part of any club scene. To say this paints LAM as club rats. Again you need to READ what I write and try to understand people's objections rather than jumping to conclusions. You need to word things better not be so stubborn about getting your way when you're clearly not qualified to be writing this stuff. The cover from NBC is useless information that means nothing. What about all the other covers Sean has done? Do you even know any? Why not list them? I had a detailed bio written today that explained a lot about important aspects of the history of LAM, the philosophy, all backed up by third party unbiased sources. Yet you think that citing which covers LAM released and some random tour dates is more important?!

3. The fact that you've been banned multiple times and threatened with a year long ban illustrates how you're regularly unwilling and unable to work with people to edit pages on Wikipedia (in other words YOU'RE the brick wall). You insist on your way or the highway and that's not constructive, especially since you have a very limited knowledge of LAM and have taken your "facts" from websites I've shown to be wrong (and you write very sloppily and poorly). Read the official history of LAM on the LAM website. It explains how LAM is Sean and the "live members vary". Do you understand what that means? I mean, to ignore this obvious and easily accessible source of fact and then deny that such information exists proves you have done no research at all.

4. Regarding Areklett- it seems the focus of your rewrite was to promote his former project (which was never a viable project and does not even exist) and to put down LAM. Your information about Mike's songs supposedly destined for LAM was taken from the Covet myspace page and has been refuted elsewhere- I've told you where you can find this information. I've explained this was untrue and later taken back by Mike himself and refuted by Sean (I think Mike even did so in his very own blog, perhaps on his personal page). Yet you refuse to do the research to see if your info is valid.

Talking to you is like talking to the Great Wall of China. Seriously, if you don't know that much about the band you need to back off. If you truly are interested in making the article good- meaning INFORMATIVE and CORRECT- you would have left the version I posted earlier today (Wikipedia restored the basic article after the banning of the other day- I just modified that with the requested citations) and maybe just added the tour dates you're so eager to present. If you care, which you obviously seem to, then please stop posting untrue stuff, personal opinion, and insults, and stop blaming me for your mistakes.

PLEASE stop editing the page. Janus was never part of the band.

Part 5

Hey YOU blanked MY page from today. Remember that? Or do other people not matter to you? Yet you're the one who is infuriated that all your work was erased? I think you need to rethink your assessment of who is being self aggrandizing (in action at least). You seem to be a little self obsessed and refuse to allow anyone but you to have input. You have changed nothing with your articles even after I've pointed out major mistakes you've made. I blanked your page because it was so full of inaccuracies it was impossible to edit and maintain anything somewhat readable. You blanked my page from earlier today. Yet you think that was fine. My page contained actual content, unlike yours. I am not trolling. YOU are the one with a history of trolling, and you are the one who refuses to remove false or misleading information and personal opinion from your writing.

Personal attacks against User:Blipblip

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAM

Some quick comments because I theoretically am at work now.

Please try and find some outside help for the article. I don't think Blipblip yet has a handle on what makes a good article, and he has conflict of interest issues. Deathrocker is perhaps overly aggressive in removing material and has revert limitations. Some other editors would provide additional perspective and could rescue parts of Blipblip's contributions that are worth rescuing.
Bibliographic citations need at a minimum the name of the source (like a magazine), date and page number. Including the article title and author name are preferred, like this: (Jan Wenner, "Rock sucks." Rolling Stone, June 31, 2007, page 44). Linking to the magazine's homepage is of no value—direct link to the article if it is freely available on line, otherwise don't link at all, just give the bibliographic details. Linking to transcripts on another web site is prohibited unless the site has permission to repost the information. Transcripts of magazine articles are probably copyright violations and we do not link to external sites that violate copyright. Again, provide the bibliographic information.
If a magazine publishes an interview, and the band's web site posts the "longer, unedited" version, the parts that are only in the band's version fall under the Self-published sources section of the reliable source policy.
Blipblip and Deathrocker need to talk about some of the disputed information on the article talk page for others to evaluate and make the edits. I am thinking specifically here about the issue of whether the band is a one-man project (kind of like Boston (band)) or a multi-person band; and the issue of the former bass player. I think it would be acceptable to discuss the issue of the bass player using Brennan and Areklett personal blogs as sources, since they are writing about themselves, but I would like a third opinion on that. In any case, the Neutral point of view policy requires that if the issue is dicussed, both sides need to be presented fairly. If an outside reader can detect the wikipedia article taking sides in the matter, that is a violation. It would be better to report what some third party reliable source has to say about the matter, if one can be found.
Deathrocker can not revert the article more than once per day or twice per week, but he can make useful edits that are not reversions. For example, the current version is poorly wikified, and the references need to formatted per WP:FOOTNOTES. Some additions that you might disagree with in the long run could still be rewritten for style and tone without removing significant content. And of course discuss it on the talk page. Of course, if the net result of many minor formatting edits is to reduce the article back to Deathrocker's perferred version, or something close to it, that's a revert violation, but he know that. He may prefer to play it safe and see if any outside editors agree with him. (Even people with whom he argues on some topics but who are knowledgable about music might be helpful here--hint hint.)

I'll look in on this over the weekend and see how you are doing. Thatcher131 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAM page- PLEASE stop editing this page. Your information is WRONG, poorly worded and misspelled=

Deathrocker- your version of the page is not useable. Your assertion that the majority of LAM music is sexual in nature shows you havent read the lyrics. Best Nightmare is a sexual comedy. Bondage Song has nothing to do with sex! Why are you just making up stuff??? You continually misunderstand the original (my) article; LAM is a profoundly political entity and ALWAYS has been. NO WHERE has it been said that the music and lyrics are entirely political. Your assertions that the band has only recently become political are WRONG- Your assertions that "Sean claims" others don't write for LAM is also wrong. This is proven is my original sources. "Ice" was one instrumental song that Sean asked Tamlyn to compose for the release of Oddities. I've corrected that line. However your general tone is negative and is unwarranted. You are implying LAM isn't what it is and implying Brennan is lying about something. This is not the case. You continue to refer to LAM as a "group" or "band", its more accurately described as a "project" because it has no members that contribute to the functioning of the project. Words like "their" etc don't belong. Your spelling leaves something to be desired, there are several made up words, poor grammar and useless information so I've changed some of this. Your chronology of live members is completely wrong. Janus never played with LAM. It will be removed. Your chronology of press coverage is also all wrong. It will be edited. You seriously need to actually READ my version as you have discarded the most important aspects and you continually make the same mistakes with yours. You have removed important descriptive information on the band and substituted garbage like a recital of tour dates. What good does that do? Your chronology of releases (under recent times) is also completely WRONG. DO SOME RESEARCH or stop editing the page!

You're wrong part 2

You have NOT researched the article. How do you explain all the mistakes I keep pointing out?

Proof you don't read what I write- The bondage song is NOT ABOUT SEX. This is the second time I've had to tell you yet you act like I never informed you of this fact! Have you ever read the lyrics? Email Sean and ask him what its about.

The edited out portions were either wrong, useless (like cover songs), was unsourced or pointless. I mean to butcher what I had written to add stuff about a NBC cover is nonsensical.

I am in no way being mean. However you have been terribly rude to me. I pointed out the FACT that your spelling is very poor - something you should fix before posting articles to Wikipedia, dont you think? It was a point to illustrate how you're not doing all you should to make your work here top-notch. Sorry, no I fixed all spelling mistakes. I think I resaved it once before I fixed the spelling mistakes, and it had several other errors in it as well. Perhaps rather than be so ultra-defensive you should learn the facts. And you had more than one word misspelled.

No bassist or drummer played on Scenes

Hawkins was in the live band until 1991 then came back in 2001. Your chronology is wrong! Your knowledge is lacking.

No one ever said LAM was part of punk rock (early form) but the later DIY punk scene that reached all the way into the late 80s and early 90s. Are you entirely unaware of this scene? Of how political it was? LAM was very much a part off this scene. In Los Angeles this scene was the only local music scene there was spawning bands like Rage Against the Machine, etc.

An attitude adjustment is needed here- but not by me.

episode three=

This shows you are totally unaware of the facts of LAM's birth, Brennan's philosophy, the time period, etc. No one said LAM was part of the punk scene. I said LAM incorporated that aspect of the punk movement, which is very true and was very real. Have you ever heard of Ben is Dead? Are you familiar with the LA local music scene of the 80s and 90s? Are you at all familiar with any bands in the late 80s and early 90s who were inspired by the punk movement who were very political? If not then you seriously need to go to school. Also- you seriously need to work on your reading skills. See, you are taking an adversarial approach to this and then trying to blame others. This is blinding you from being able to understand other people's points.

Spelling- I accidentally saved a page with one misspelling (I meant to preview it, not save it and I had hardly even bothered with correcting your spelling yet). Every single article you've posted has had multiple misspellings, poor grammar, awkward sentences, not to mention fiction. Compare your older version with one that's up now as an example of where I corrected several of your misspelled words.

I removed the bit about the cover because its awkward reading. Why mention this one song out of so many songs? I edited it for clarity sake. Its just a sore thumb,, reading-wise, that's all. Nothing more.

The Bondage song is NOT ABOUT SEX. Have you ever heard of art? The song is about control. The bondage aspect is a metaphor- but where does it describe sex acts? No where. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of poetry should be able to spot this. Even so, saying the majority of the music is sexual because you think one song refers to sexual bondage acts is quite strange. See- you're just not getting it. I really am beyond dealing with you because you refuse to work with others which is why you've been banned so often from Wikipedia, been on probation and been warned with a year long ban.

And my article stated that the live members "typically do not play on recordings". This is fact.

Deathrocker: in an effort to de-escalate this tit-for-tat, abiding by Wikipedia rules of engagement for dispute resolution, I will take for the sake of argument your position that MC began at the moment the four, original members adopted the MC monicker. If this is the standard by which the band's history begins, which is not the universal position (i.e. some sites consider the first rehearsals with other members the start of what became MC), then you are right that Greg Leon, et al, were not ever "in" MC. This is why I have not edited the MC site in the last 24 hours to re-add the "former members". However, I would urge you to again read the wording of the GL page - you'll find, as I've pointed that, that it states "involved"...this is accurate as Tommy's introduction and first rehearsals with GL are a) post-Suite 19 (considerable time had gone by since S19, as Lee had long since been replaced by Gary Holland, later of Great White, and by the time of these rehearsals S19 didn't exist), b) the rehearsals featured both later MC music (written by Sixx) and GL music, and c) GL and Sixx have both claimed that not continuing to work together was a mutual decision (though some sites say GL quit or that Sixx fired him). This makes GL's choice of leaving what was quickly turning into MC unwise, as his other choices to leave Dokken, Quit Riot, Rough Cutt, etc...hence GL's reputation for odd career moves and his redeaming novelty (beyond his reputation for guitar prowess, cited by folks such as Lee). A Sniper

LAM

As much as i dislike you, when it comes to the LAM article your not actually causing the problem. As such ive contacted an admin called Oden, seeking help from him in dealing with Blip. As current on top of this, we need to create the temp page, porting over what i mocked up - which i suggest doing purely for the basis of progress from both of yew. Other than that, if Blip continues to be offensive, report him on WP:AN and ill second it; as as you know, my patience is extremely thin.

RoboCrouch

..Love the Crouch-robot-dancing animation here. Thanks. Have a great day. :) ← ANAS ^Talk 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP Munich

Hello,

You are invited to join WikiProject Munich!

There are a lot of things to do in this project. From creating new articles to finetuning articles into featured article status.

How can you help?

You can join a Task Force.
You can help comform Munich-related articles to Wikipedia Policy.
You can get free Munich-related images under GNU Free Documentation License.
You can create and edit of Munich-related articles.
You can do translations from German Wikipedia to English Wikipedia on Munich-related articles.
You can help do assessments of Munich-related articles.
You can help expand articles currently in the Stub-class and Start-class.
You can help reference articles.
Since original research is against Wikipedia policy, you can research topics to expand. This means you don't need to know anything about Munich.
You can help expand stubs and start-class articles and help finetune other articles into Featured article status.

A WikiProject of this nature is very broad. Munich has a rich history in sports, culture, politics along with many more topics. Feel free to help out in your area of interest.

If you want to check the project out you can click the link above. If you want to join the project, you can sign up here.

If you have any questions feel free to contact myself or any other member of the project.

Kingjeff 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:NightmovesBandLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NightmovesBandLogo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on this?

I read your comments and the article on LAM, and the edit war that occurred. There's a similar but longer edit war for Midnight_Syndicate, and I was just wondering what you might think. Nothing to vote on there. I'm just trying to get a feel for what might be the right direction on this. Also, no one ever commented on the Rfc, so, whatever. Talk:Midnight_Syndicate (see archive too). If you don't want to get involved in the article, rsvp on my talk pg. I'm just curious for an outsider opinion. Thanks. Peacekpr 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually User:Durova commented on the RfC, stop stating falsehoods as facts. [31] Dionyseus 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind Dionyseus, he's been stalking every post I make. (I'm flattered, really). I'm just looking for a NON-biased opinion. Another editor on the incidents page did not think the article even met WP:MUSIC for notability, so I wonder what you think of that, and of the two opposing views, seeing as it is similar to the LAM article you had problems with. And, no one ever did comment on Rfc, unless you count the sockpuppet votes. Peacekpr 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not strike out my comment, you have no right to do that. And despite your claims to the contrary, User:Durova did comment on the Request for Comment as I have noted above. Dionyseus 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peacekpr, if you are really interested in being a peacekeeper and working out the issues between the apparent current and former band members, you can start by being nice to all sides, and especially Dionyseus who, like you claim to be, is not a partisan on either side. Thatcher131 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker, sorry to have mucked up your talk page. I think I have a right to ask a non-involved party his opinion. Thatcher, I am just trying to get a feel for who the editors are and the main points of contention, and Dionyseus seems to be stalking my every post, checking my IP as I check others, etc. I've not even edited anything, so a sock check was uncalled for, but I don't care. I don't intend to edit. I intended to get the others to agree on something. And Durovo did comment, stating he/she did not have enough time to devote to an involved discussion or to editing or verifying the material. Durova made some suggestions to cite references for disputed content, which was done by GuardianZ, but then it was removed by Skinny McGee and Dionyseus. Not one single other editor commented, and the only people to vote were those waring. It seemed pointless. I can't help but see the article as a promotional venue for the band. I don't think any of it, except maybe the very first opening, paragraph was NOR. Peacekpr 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HIM (band)

Do you bother to read edit summaries before reverting? semper fi — Moe 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. And you should have seen my comment which stated in the case of articles being confused that it should be stated at the beginning of the article [to help with the disambiguation], not the end treated like trivia. Not only that, but you reverted other edits other than that, like removing the sprotected2 template, and other minor clean-up to the article. semper fi — Moe 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Heavy Metal bands

I didn't realize that Iron Maiden were in the revert. I actually agree that they weren't part of the Original Movement. I was simply making it so LZ, Queen, and Steppenwolf had the ^{[citation needed]} tag next to them. --Inhumer 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

Following your revert parole and subsequent edit warring at Glam metal, I've had to block you for 24 hours. Please make use of the {{unblock}} template, if you'd like to contest this. Sorry. Luna Santin 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems with Image:AlanShearer.jpg

An image that you uploaded, Image:AlanShearer.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems because it is a suspected copyright violation. Please look there if you know that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), and then provide the necessary information there and on its page, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

I do believe you tried in good faith, but were just confused. The original copyright holder of the image probably didn't release it under the CC SA. MECU≈talk 15:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchodin

Yew know me, i always have my say. Anarchodin IS a vandal. He started on the Folk Metal articles and Symphonic Metal articles, creating 'genres' and 'relations' as he saw fit. I saw his 'revamp' on the List of Heavy Metal Genres page.

If he carries on, just revert him. Yew have full support in dealing with him. Im sure between the two of us, we can put an end to his obvious discare for WP:NPOV and Facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.80.149 (talk) 06:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

warrenmr

"Indie" as a genre consists of a wide range of influences, sounds, and musical stylings. To deny that the White Stripes, who have played on independent record labels and have a sound that lays way outside the mainstream, are indie is to deny that the term is as generic as it seems to be. Even wikipedia's article on indie (music) discusses that there are varying definitions of "indie". I believe sincerely that the White Stripes should be described as an indie band just as much as they are a rock band, a garage band, and a blues band. There is nothing wrong with this label, but perhaps we could open this discussion up to a larger group of wikipedia users and see if we can't resolve this issue. I will leave "indie" off for now, but try to see where I am coming from.

white stripes

First, try to be civil when talking with other wikipedians. Next time you attack me like that, i will report you. A nice, calm tone will get work done much easier.

Second, i removed it because it said "a folk-rock sensibility." "Sensibility" is defined by Merriam-webster as

“

1 : ability to receive sensations : SENSITIVENESS <tactile sensibility>
2 : peculiar susceptibility to a pleasurable or painful impression (as from praise or a slight) -- often used in plural
3 : awareness of and responsiveness toward something (as emotion in another)
4 : refined or excessive sensitiveness in emotion and taste with especial responsiveness to the pathetic"

”

[32]

Which means that the reviewers are not calling them folk rock, they say that they have an "awareness of" folk rock. That's not the same thing as being folk rock. If NPR said "a mixture of blues rock, punk, and folk rock", you might have an argument if you could support it with another source.

I will remove it again from the article. If you still disagree, you can discuss it on the White Stripes talk page. Please do not use my own personal talk page to discuss this.

Thank you, and Happy Holidays. dposse 13:30, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for that, i didn't know who posted the edit. I thought it was just some random IP address who vandaised with some silly genre. To be quite honest with you, i laughed when i saw folk rock because i listen to the White Stripes on a regular basis and Folk Rock is one thing, in my opinion, that they are not. Please, don't be offended by that, i'm just stating my feelings.

Second, i'm not sure that a link to Youtube is allowed here on wikipedia, due to the fact that it's not reliable.

Again, would you please use the White Stripes article talk page so that we can reach a build a consensus on this issue? It would make things go by so much more easy if other wikipedians can get in on this topic.

thanks. dposse 20:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A compromise!

“

The White Stripes are an American rock music duo from Detroit, composed of Jack White on guitar, piano, lead vocals and songwriting, and Meg White on drums, percussion and vocals. The group rose to prominence as part of the garage rock revival with the albums White Blood Cells and Elephant; the latter featured their most commercially successful song, "Seven Nation Army", which won the 2004 Grammy Award for Best Rock Song. The White Stripes are known for their raw low fidelity sound and the simplicity of their compositions and arrangements mostly inspired by punk rock, American blues, Folk rock[1], and country music.[2]

”

What do you think? A pretty good compromise, huh? ^_^ dposse 15:44, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed weasel words

Hello there. I saw your edits to Disturbed, and since i am trying to contribute to the article when i can, i was wondering if you could give me a heads-up and tell me your objections to the article, so i can work on it? Thanks in advance. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 17:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A deletion

You better have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/La Liga 2006/2007 results December 2006. Basically a non footballing wikipedian has nominated the detailed results sections of Serie A and La Liga for deletion. I'm personally totally against them being deleted. I've voted to keep the pages and I just thought I'd highlight this as you might want to vote either way on this. Thanks Niall123 18:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decapitated

Please tell how that is in any way relevant to the band. Inhumer 07:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it is sourced, I will remove it again if you don't give me and other editors reasons for it to be there and of its relevances to the bands article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Inhumer (talk • contribs) 07:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Just because the guy is wearing a hoody of a band doesn't mean he is necessarily influenced the band, it could mean he is simply a fan of the band. Like I've said "Extreme Metal" fans and musicians can and usually are fans of other types of including more traditional metal, hard rock, blues, jazz, classical, and even rap.

If I was a member of a DM band and I appeared in a promo shot in a Sunny Day Real Estate(A band I love) shirt, it wouldn't have to mean my music was influenced by them.

Glam metal

If you remove sourced material from this article again, you will be blocked. You are already on revert parole, and restarting a long-dormant edit war is something you shouldn't be doing. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glam metal

If you remove sourced material from this article again, you will be blocked. You are already on revert parole, and restarting a long-dormant edit war is something you shouldn't be doing. | Mr. Darcy talk 15:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no "community consensus" on that talk page. Don't remove the content again, or I will initiate a new block. | Mr. Darcy talk 16:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I've read the entire talk page, and I see no consensus against including it - nor is there such a thing as a consensus to remove material cited from reliable sources. Edit-warring is absolutely grounds for a block, and given your history on that article and your wikilawyering on my talk page, I'd be perfectly justified in blocking you again. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before, you can be blocked for edit-warring, and for violating the spirit of your parole by attempting to skirt the 1RR restriction. Your use of a blank edit summary indicates to me that you were hoping to avoid scrutiny of the edit. You are absolutely right to discuss the matter on Talk:Glam metal, however, and I'm glad to see you've returned to that thread. Regarding your specific comments on my talk page:

Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy, and it refers to article subjects, so it's not germane here to the question of whether or not a single term should be included.
Your claims of a "consensus" of "two to one" are not accurate. First, a consensus among three people isn't really a consensus unless it's unanimous. But more importantly, at the time there were two editors (myself and Xndr) arguing for inclusion, and two (yourself and New Rock Star) arguing against. A third editor has now weighed in in favor of inclusion.
The relevance of the quotes seems obvious to me. The section in question is about the decline in glam metal's popularity; the fact that members of the media turned on glam metal is both evidence of the decline and possibly a contributing factor to the decline. This is a topic for discussion on the talk page, but I do think you've got a tough road to hoe there, with WP:NPOV working against you. Still, let's discuss it.

I hope that makes my position clearer. If my stance seems harsh, it is in part because you have a history of punishments for reverting, and as a result I'm holding you to a higher standard. Meet that standard by leaving the quotes in the article until a clear consensus emerges to the contrary, and we'll be fine. | Mr. Darcy talk 18:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy that

Fancy meeting yew on the Administrators talk page. And what trouble yew got yourself into now?

Oh just to warn yew, that Retro Metal, is gonna get removed by someone very shortly. The template lists on the big big genres as listed on List of heavy metal genres. So, thats gonna go by by pretty soon. Yew might wanna just move it to the template on the Heavy Metal article.

Oh, and like i said, what shit yew dropped yourself into? Yew can be a twat i know, but im always looking to see whats happening. Oh, and remember, your revert parole says 1 revert per 24 hours - just the way it is. Keep ur nose clean!

And what happened to that LAM article? That kid dissapeared and the article is rotting, we need do something about that. Oh, and do me favour and drop me a contact line, i could do with speaking to you outside of Wikipedia's confines. The strongest alliances come from the strongest wars.

Blocked for 48 hours (Glam metal)

Because of your revert to this page on December 28, you broke the revert parole that was given to you in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker, which stated that you could not revert a page more than once per 24 hours (1RR), twice per 7 days, or 3 times per 30 days. By my calculations, your revert on December 28 was your fourth revert on glam metal this month, so I have blocked you for 48 hours. I could have blocked you for up to a week, but since you (and certainly some people on WP:AN/I) may have forgotten about the finer points of the revert parole, I elected to only block you for 48 hours. Please use talk pages more instead of simply reverting, and be more careful in the future when you do decide to revert edits by other users.

You may also see my most recent AN/I post [33] for more information, including all of the diffs I looked at in the page history. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 19:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for reverts I have already served a block for at the start of the month regarding the 3 edits. The other 1R was weeks later, how is a block warranted? Especially as the edit was in no-means bad faith?
Also I did use the talkpage in regards to it first.[34] - Deathrocker 04:29, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Sorry, but your revert parole in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker was clearly violated. The blocking admin took into account that you may have misunderstood your parole and blocked you for 48 hours instead of a week. Try not to get too upset about it, just reread your parole terms and you'll see the problem. Although you may have discussed your revert, the parole says nothing about "without discussing" -- it simply says you must not revert any page too often. Again, sorry if this is a misunderstanding, but the Arbcom ruling is pretty clear. Mango juice^talk 16:02, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

Idea about the Decapitated article

Perhaps making a trivia section and moving it there would be better as it really isn't overly relevant to the main article. Inhumer 01:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind, it seems to have been removed. Inhumer 01:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock restructure

Can you take a look at this, and let me know your toughts? I'm open to suggestion, but my reasoning is that this format makes it easier to follow, and to add to. Thanks. + Ceoil 02:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources on the EM article

I have to agree with PhantomOTO in that I don't think two sources that state the exact same thing(almost word for word) are needed. Inhumer 07:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I don't think he was trying to vandalize you edits or push a non NPOV. I think he saw that they read the same thing and though that only one would be necessary. Inhumer 08:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I was wondering, do you really believe that you show no bias towards "Extreme Metal" and its fans? Inhumer 08:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes you think that modern day fans of only and/or mainly traditional metal don't feel the same way about nu metal.

Also, saying that fans of the original movement don't consider "Extreme Metal" metal is the same thing as the whole "Extreme Metal fans don't consider nu metal metal" argument. Inhumer 09:08, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Led Zeppelin source on Encyclopaedia Metallum page

The VH1 citation is redundant in light of the Allmusic citation. If there needs to be two, you should add one of the other sources you presented during the arguments on the talk page a few months back.

Also the edits that you called "extreme POV" made no mention or implication of nu metal. In fact, the episode I was referring to was a few years ago when someone submitted British pop, new wave, and post-punk bands as "NWOBHM" and mods would accept them without a thorough review. Also, as mentioned in the guidelines, there were some that turned out to be hard rock or glam rock. Of course, some were nu metal, but I still did not mention or imply that, and one would only surmise that if they read my edit and the EM guidelines, although I had no intention of connecting the two. Still, I reworded it into something I hope you find more acceptable, and don't just instantly revert when you see my name in the page history. PhantomOTO 15:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't really care about inconveniencing you, since you're so intolerably petulant and mean, especially since when I try to be civil, you come back being a grouch. Same with the "mallcore" links. Unless you're on a 14.4 connection, it's not too difficult to remove them, is it?

Also, with the Decapitated fact you inserted, it is irrevelevant. You removed a sourced statement about the term "hair farmer" from the glam metal page on the grounds that it was irrelevant, and were eventually blocked for that. So don't call me a vandal. PhantomOTO 15:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Leon

Hey Deathrocker...what is your obsession with Greg Leon and refusing what most biographers have agreed was his association with Motley Crue as the lynch pin between Nikki & Tommy? You continue to edit his page, insisting that Leon was not 'associated' with Crue (and merely a member of Suite 19). I have already agreed, using your rationale, that Leon was never a member of Crue, but he was certainly involved with Crue's creation. If you persist, I'll do like many others and report your continued vandalism/obsessive mis-editing. A Sniper

Hey Deathrocker: why don't you limit your subjective opinions on Greg Leon to the Greg Leon talk page instead of tit-for-tat, hit & run vandalism? You seem obsessed with this - and I'll continue to correct your vandalism every ten minutes if you so wish. If you continue, I'll report you...just as so many others seem to have...You don't appear to really know anything about anything, so what's the point? Saying I'm Greg Leon is as ridiculous as me saying you're Vince Neil. Obviously you've not even bothered to see that there are references at the bottom of the Greg Leon page - I've been a fan since the Starwood. A Sniper

Italian Football Championships/Serie A

Hi! Please stop editing the Italian Football Championship seasons pages. There's a standard layout for them. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Italian Football talk page. CapPixel 01:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's useless to "import" the seasons from the Italian Wiki, since the layout of the Italian pages is very different (telling the truth, most of the Italian seasons has no layout, I've created them myself 1 or 2 years ago). Since we've agreed on a standard layout (that is 2006-07 layout), the season pages should be created with that standard. CapPixel 08:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BITE

Regarding your message to User:Musical Guru: Please remember to assume good faith first and approach new users in a polite manner. --ElectricEye (talk) 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your message: I understand. Ok, if that is the case, it is best just to ignore. If there is more of a problem, let me know or you can get more help from anyone at Wikipedia:Concordia --ElectricEye (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a Greg Leon concession

OK, OK - I have given way with your last edit ("He was also in a pre-Mötley Crüe band named Suite 19, with Tommy Lee."), mostly because it is factual...but did you even bother to read my note to you re: a) why thinking I am Greg Leon is illogical, and b) that mentioning MC actually makes Leon look even more foolish, since (again) he made another crash & burn career move? I will also not add MC to the list of the other bands, simply because it is redundant if your edit line above is used. So stop the vandalism now - move on to another user to become obsessed with...A Sniper

Deathrocker, see my response at my talk page. I shall take a break from Greg Leon editing for a short period and perhaps insert some of the citations. I can't say I agree with everything you wrote, but I am trying to show good faith and understanding. My request to you is to leave the additional data at the MC page, as it is all verifiable detail that took dedicated digging to gather, and it would be unfortunate if our "situation" caused overkill (on either of our parts) that ended up denying others the ability to read correct and factual info. If on the other hand we were to escalate things and spend each day challenging each others edits subjectively, it would be a time-consuming, malicious mess. Remember that I have ceased some of the edits because I was swayed by your arguments. However, I am certainly not Greg and I am not sockpuppeting (despite any appearances), and would appreciate if those claims were withdrawn. I would also like to hear your opinion on what I had to say re: Leon's career decisions, as that was my motivation for mentioning MC in the first place (along with the other major label acts)... A Sniper

Remember Me?

Hey, it's Mike5193 from the old "so called sock-puppet" days. Whatever happened to that case? Did the person who was accusing us of sock puppetry get banned? So whats up with you lately? Anyway, just checking in. Write me back.
Michael 23:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Catania1956.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Catania1956.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. MECU≈talk 16:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Catania1946.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Catania1946.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 16:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton Donaldson

Hi, I was just wandering where you got the info from that York City's valuation for Clayton Donaldson was £500,000. Thanks. -- Mattythewhite 17:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Offspring

Dear user, you source that calls The Offspring a "punk pop" band is not reliable. I invite you to read the discussion and see why that source is incredibly poor in what it says. --Dexter prog 15:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSS IN TALK before leaving me messages acussing me of being a vandal, you are the one citing NOT RELIABLE sources and editing without discussing first. --Dexter prog 17:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This matter has already been solved, why not deleting it? --Dexter prog 15:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardcore and punk

Hardcore punk is still a form of punk music, hence the word punk in the name. The first hardcore punk bands were considered part of the overall punk scene. It was not until later (maybe the 1990s, I'm not sure) when there was a clear split between the punk rock scene and the baggy pant/wifebeater vest/baseball cap metal-influenced hardcore scene. Spylab 21:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your response on my talk page, I reiterate that hardcore and punk were not always separate scenes. The first hardcore punk bands were considered part of the overall punk scene. The first hardcore punk bands were around before the term hardcore even came into existence. They were were just called punk bands at the time. And of course Bad Brains aren't like the Buzzcocks. The Damned isn't like The Clash either, (and neither of those two are like The Exploited), but they are all punk (or at least they started out that way). Spylab 21:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion that punk fans moved into new romantic, gothic rock, new wave and post-punk is not a complete picture. New romantic and the original gothic rock scenes were mostly a UK thing. Many American punks, did in fact, cut off their spiky haircuts, ditch the more outrageous clothing styles and form what became the hardcore punk scene. Pretending that there was some clean cut between punk and hardcore is just that, pretending.Spylab 22:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valor

I'm pretty much willing to bet money that Valor's the one trying to turn the direction of the Christian Death article to focus on him...What a faggot. Maybe he needs to admit to himself that he's a plagerist with no original ideas of his own and move on since everybody knows the truth, no matter how much he trys to cover it up, anyway. Rzrscm 01:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm and blues

This note was also left on that page's talk page, but is copied below as well.

This is not correct, at all. Contemporary R&B is not some mere subset of pop music. What should be done with this article is that someone should write a middle section for it to discuss soul and funk briefly, to link 50's R&B with modern R&B. Before you attempt to split anything, you have to realize that thousands of articles redirect to this one, and whoever decides to split any of the articles is responsible for making sure each and every link redirects to the correct page. Furthermore, a proper split should be at contemporary R&B, and no place else - formatting is important. --FuriousFreddy 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:SholaAmeobi.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SholaAmeobi.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced images and personal attacks

Deathrocker, please, stop pushing the use of unsourced images like you did in Shola_Ameobi ([35],http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shola_Ameobi&diff=104975958&oldid=104332218]).

Also, avoid personal edit-summaries. And please, consider quitting referring me as a vandal or puppet-master, as I feel it as a form of personal attack.

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Then you and your sock puppet stop stalking users on Wikipedia as multiple other users have acused you of doing. Call a spade a spade.... you go following people around screwing with any image you can find, claiming it is replaceable without bothering to prove it by replacing it yourself, is plain as day trolling. You're not adding anything constructive to the project, but then again that is probably your purpose. - Deathrocker 14:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no sock puppet. Stop right now with this accusation. Yes, I follow the user contributions from users I interact with and this is not considered a wrongdoing. These logs are public for a reason. And even if you don't agree with my behavior, this is no excuse to push the use of unsourced images in articles. Take good care, --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:17, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker, I would encourage you to take to heart our fair use guidelines. It is not appropriate to upload/use general media/promotional images for living persons for whom it is possible to obtain a free image. This restriction has been tightened recently so you may not be aware of it, but Abu badali does have policy on his side in this instance. In addition, comments like "image terrorism" go beyond the bounds of civility, so please moderate your tone and try to have an honest, reasonable discussion to come to some agreement on this matter. I have every confidence that you will be able to do this well, having seen your good contributions before. -- nae'blis 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per Nae'blis, please do not make personal attacks on Abu. He is upholding our current policy. If you disagree with this, bring it up at WP:FU. Calling him a vandal/troll/terrorist is at the very least uncivil. When a user comes across a copyright violation it is standard practice to check the contributions of the uploader, this is not trolling. Furthermore the burden of proof is not on the tagger to prove it is replaceable - but the uploader to show why it can be used. Please also assume good faith, accusing Abu of deliberately damaging the project does not reflect well on you. ed g2s • talk 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Badali has a history of cyberstalking and even has a RFC [36] with numerous users complaining about that very subject. Following people around constantly and screwing with all their (perfectly reasonable) images, falls under that.

Are you seriously telling me, somebody who signs up to Wikipedia and ONLY ever has interest in attacking images trying to get them deleted is really adding anything to the project? WP:FU is a guideline, it isn't a policy.... so no, he doesn't have policy on his side.

Badali was even rejected adminship because of copyright paranoia [37] and being confrontational (see, following users around). So that is proof that, he doesn't have policy on his side... and has been warned against what he persists in doing before.

You stalk somebody around, screwing with the work they are adding, intentionally trying to agitate them; then you should expect to get called a troll, its a textbook example of that definition. All the attempting to hide behind faux-good faith with "best regards", etc at the ends of messages doesn't change that at all. - Deathrocker 03:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 48hrs

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

Important! If you use the optional parameter, you must supply the words "blocked for" in order for the template to properly parse.--Jersey Devil 18:09, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also contest this block by putting {{Unblock}} on your talk page. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 18:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See above for reasons; I was provoked via persistant cyberstalking. Badali has been doing this for months in regards to following people around, from Shakira [38] article, to more recently Mauro Camoranesi with me. Screwing with numerous images I have uploaded, following me around to them. (he also has a history of harassing others in the exact same way[39][40] - Deathrocker 03:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get an unblock review from the original admin and not one who is Badali's best buddy please? As you say you "haven't checked", so why are you filling out the unblock review if you can't be bothered to look into it. Not once has Badali pointed out policy, if you actually took time to read the points up above instead of jumping in blindly to defend your pal as you have done in the past[41].

WP:FU is guideline NOT policy, the images were uploaded reasonable within guidelines anyway. And as I pointed out above, he has been warned against copyright paranoia in regards to images and stalking before. Nowhere in WP:STALK does it say stalking somebody around and screwing with their work is acceptable; there are no exceptions stated in any policy, and his actions fall under that described in cyberstalking- Deathrocker 04:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't blocked for violations of WP:FU, nor were you blocked by Abu Badali. You were blocked for multiple violations of WP:NPA. Finally, you have already been told that it is not considered stalking to point out when you violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not make such a claim again, it is a violation of WP:NPA. --Yamla 04:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you on about? I'm well aware that I wasn't blocked by Badali he was rejected adminship for copyright paranoia/stalking, etc. I was blocked by User:Jersey Devil and that is who I was requesting a unblock review from.

If you can't be bothered to actually read into things properly and get a grasp of what is been said, why involve yourself? You've blatanly ignored points put fourth on this very page, which is made evident by your replies. Also you haven't stated any official Wikipedia policy in which cyberstalking is acceptable or made as an exception... because there isn't one, that is just your baseless POV. Wikipedia doesn't advocate harassment. - Deathrocker 04:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read what caused you to be blocked. Personal attacks. I took a look at the personal attacks you made to confirm that you did make them. It was pretty straight-forward. WP:NPA does not permit you to make personal attacks if you are goaded. --Yamla 04:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked which specific policy allows for cyberstalking on the Wikipedia. WP:STALK specifically states, "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." So, warning you of violations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines is specifically not considered stalking. --Yamla 05:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you stated, "WP:FU is guideline NOT policy". Please note that the criteria part of that, WP:FUC, is policy. Not that this is relevant to your block for continued personal attacks, mind you. --Yamla 05:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all WP:STALK is guideline, not official policy.

WP:STALK also states: "This page in a nutshell: Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by (...), nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles".... which following numerous users around constantly, refreshing their contributions every 30 mins and dashing frantically to any images uploaded to try and get it deleted[42], falls within.

And as I pointed out before... what Badali was claiming (WP:FU not WP:FUC) is specifically stated as a guideline, which the images uploaded were within anyway... try reading through it, I always search for free alternatives before uploading.. the proof is in the pudding that a certain "internet admirer" can't ever actually find replacements for such images... just gets them deleted.

Regardless, his actions still fall under cyberstalking.. and you are yet to point out any specfic official policy advocating harassment. - Deathrocker 05:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user talk page protection

The requirement not to use fair-use images of living people is part of the policy. This page has been protected due to your continued unfounded personal attacks of cyberstalking on Abu Badali. Any further personal attacks will result in a much longer block. --Yamla 05:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion with Yamla I have unprotected this page to allow you to continue to converse with respect to your block or other questions about the policy in question. If you show any signs of escalating your criticisms of Abu Badali I will reprotect and possibly extend your block. What I am after here is your understanding that there is indeed a policy regarding fair use images that applies to your actions. This is not the place to pursue vengeance against Abu Badali; I would like to see a policy/guideline-based discussion here, not personal sniping back and forth. -- nae'blis 20:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vengence? How is stating that I feel I have been cyberstalked (and providing diffs) a form of vengence on my part?...

If you read through what I have written above. I make reference to policy/guideline in just about every post to back up my points in various feilds (incl. images). Anyways, there isn't that long left of my block; so unless the blocking admin (not Yamla) can offer a review... I might as well just wait it out, then dicuss it afterwards if I see fit. - Deathrocker 02:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be a number of problems here:

You think that a user watching the contributions of someone who repeatedly violates FUC#1 is cyberstalking. This is simply not the case - your contributions are made public for this very reason - so other users can make sure you're not making the same mistake twice, which you clearly are. If you continue to make these allegations your block may be extended.
You seem to think making personal attacks when you feel you have been wronged is acceptable. It is not. If you do this again you will be re-blocked.
You have misunderstood WP:FUC#1. That you searched the internet for a free alternative does not mean the image is irreplaceable. You may join in the discussion at WP:FU, but until there is a change in policy images for which a free alternative could be found will continue to be deleted as a violation of policy. Do not contest this policy on individual image talk pages, nor attack users enforcing it.

ed g2s • talk 13:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some image problems

You may want to take a look at these:

Unsourced

Unused & unfree

Image:York_City_Logo.gif

Unfree & replaceable

Image:SeaweedPromo2006.jpg

Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your attention. But I noticed some of the information provided as source where not perfect. Fansites are not source for images (they are simply reusers). Likewise, explaining that an image was scanned from some magazine or unidentified press pack adds no information to it's copyright status verifiability. If you could, please take a look at them again. As source, try to provide the image's author and/or current copyright holder, and provide some evidence the image was really indented for promotional use (whenever it's tagged as {{promo}}). Let me know if I can be of any help. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Image:Dogs06_jpg.jpg (and Image:Schwarz_Stein.jpg)

Hi, Deathrocker. About this edition of mine (and your concerns regarding it), my point is that the url you gave as source seems to be a from a site that happens to use the image, but has nothing to do with it's copyright holders. That is, the site has no right to display the image, let alone to permit others to do so, serving as a source for material. Of course, I may be wrong on my interpretation. But I have looked at the site and found no copyright statement for none of the hundred images it displays. A google search on "copyright" on the site's domain returns only one page, with no images. As a rule of thumb, avoid uploading images you find on the Internet as {{promotional}}. Few sites take copyright issues as seriously as Wikipedia does. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Schwarz_Stein.jpg

The same concerns apply for Image:Schwarz_Stein.jpg. You suggested me to contact the record company who purportedly owns the image, but have you done so yourself, or simply taken for granted that the "source" fansite have not gone into copyright violation? What makes us sure that the image is really "promotional", in the sense that it's intended to be used by the media to identify the artist? Note that many artist images are produced not for widespread use. Some may, for instance, target exclusive deals with this or that magazine or website. I would agree that the chance being sued by the copyright holder seems low, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We're one of the most serious sites in regards to copyright (probably the most serious among the user-driven ones) and we gain nothing in relaxing this reputation. I hope you understand the concerns. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fanpacks" and Image:Piasspromo.jpg

Hello, again. About this edition I did, and your concerns over it, I want to clarify and apologize for a misunderstanding from my part. When you said "fanpack", I interpreted it as something like a "fan-made pack of material", and that's why I warned that they are not reliable source (in regards to copyrights). Thanks for clarifying these so called fanpacks come from the artist's record label and as such, are unlikely to contain copyright violation themselves (as fansites, for instance, usually do).

One last concern about this kind sources is verifiability. It's hard for someone to double-check if the uploaded haven't committed (good-faith) mistakes like ignoring warnings like fine-prints "For personal use only" or "All Rights Reserved". Have you looked for them?

Sorry again for my misunderstanding regarding the "fanpack" stuff. Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MessinaInter2006.jpg and WP:FUC#8

Hello one more time :) . (I'm trying to keep one concerns per thread to help the flow of conversation, I hope you prefer this way too, instead of a big long message). I want to express some concerns I have over the use of your recent upload Image:MessinaInter2006.jpg. You say the "image is important to the club historically". I understand the match may have been important to the club history (although it may be too early to judge, as the match is so recent), but I would disagree that that specific image is of any historic importance to the club. That is, it may be "ok" (or even necessary) to mention the match on the team's article. But I don't think we can justify the use of an unfree image to illustrate this information. Of course, if a free image becomes available, it should be used (as illustrative use of free images are welcome).

Would you agree in deleting this image? --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:C.C.DevilleGlam.jpg and it's source

About this edit (and your concerns over it), when I follow the link you provided as source (http://www.planetdeville.com/) all I get is a black page with not text or images. Of course I understand this may be a problem with my setup, and that's why I apologized in the edit summary for the beginning for the case I was "doing something wrong". If you recently followed the link and it was o.k. (and it leads to a page identifying the image's copyright holder and backing up the {{promotional}} claim), please, just leave the source as it is (and if you could, let me know so that I can try to fix my PC/network setup). Best regards, --Abu badali ^(talk) 11:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone

This sort of comment is the reason you were blocked. Marking a source on an image page as invalid is, regardless of what you whether you agree with it, not vandalism, as is any edit made in good faith (by definition). I hope I don't have to warn you about this again. ed g2s • talk 02:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good faith edits cannot be vandalism by definition. There is no evidence to suggest Abu is acting in bad faith. Stop your accusations immediately or I will be forced to take further action. None of "your" content was even deleted - remember "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.". ed g2s • talk 11:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence

Hi, I've seen you frequently around the article Evanescence and other related articles. Please consider joining the WikiProject Evanescence, an effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding Evanescence.

If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks that you can help with. Thank you!!!

Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:YorkRI.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:YorkRI.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 16:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tags

It is considered a serious act of vandalism to remove the no-rationale tags from images without providing a detailed fair-use rationale. You did this to Image:KristyMajorsForThoseAboutToSniff.jpg. If you do not understand what is required in a fair-use rationale, please read Help:Image description page. --Yamla 15:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

You said: "Try not flooding my page with mountains of spam, for simple logo images... unless you'd like to be reported. Football club logos on Wikipedia never have rationales provided, see top clubs for example; Manchester United, Barcelona, Chelsea, AC Milan, etc.

A valiant effort on your part to stop the progress of users work on football articles though. But unless you are going to try and change the entire concensus of football club logos on Wikipedia (which covers hundreds of thousands of articles the same) then its back to the drawing board for you here."

Please read WP:SPAM. Standard template warnings are not spam. As to the football club logos, I direct you to the license text itself, "To the uploader: please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use, as described on Help:Image page#Fair use rationale, as well as the source of the work and copyright information." Also, please reread WP:FU. Fair-use rationales are not optional for fair-use images. --Yamla 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Vince McMahon is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Yamla 16:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "As I've shown, that is how all of the football logos are on Wikipedia. If you wish to go on a crusade against all sports logos been like this (as all currently are)... then go ahead, just let me get the popcorn first. The concensus of thousands of editors who edit these thousands of sports articles.. overides one person who has a grudge against me."

Just because other images violate Wikipedia policy does not mean that we ignore the policy. The license text clearly indicates that a fair-use rationale is required and Wikipedia policy clearly indicates this as well. --Yamla 16:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KristyMajors.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:KristyMajors.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 16:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours. Wikipedia policies and guidelines, such as WP:FU, are not optional. --Yamla 17:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

see below

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I was blocked by a user who has a grudge against me and is incapable of administrating correctly IMO, Yamla.

The user blocked me because I reverted some edits he made to club logos I have uploaded, where he was undoing work simply to be a nuisance[43][44][45][46][47][48].

He did this twice, even after I politely informed him of how, quite clearly this is standard concensus for how ALL football logos are formated on Wikipedia[49], and showed him this with a couple of examples; Manchester United, Barcelona, Chelsea, AC Milan, Inter Milan, Bayern Munich, Brazil, Italy (literally go to any football club page and click on the logo, it is set out exactly the same as I did with the ones I uploaded)

Yet he carried on, IMO the guy is entirely unable to administrate with common sense and is using a personal grudge he has against me, even though clearly as I have shown the way I uploaded the football logos were in following with all of the hundreds of thousands of others on Wikipedia. - Deathrocker 17:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use of fair use images is by virtue of the fair use doctrine of copyright law, in order to be sure of our conformance we require a rationale to be present for their use within the context they are used. Your argument that others don't have rationales doesn't cut it, we have many poorly sourced (or in cases zero sourced articles), should we be saying that we no longer require sourcing? Consensus does not override certain basic standards, the requirements of copyright law being one of them.

You've been around long enough to know that to solve a dispute attacking the other editor and engaging in an war to remove administrative tags is not the right way to proceed. You could have (a) bought up a broader discussion on the issue or (b) Spent the few minutes putting together a rationale and adding it to each image. either way would have progressed the issue quite nicely. --pgk 17:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I uploaded them is the general standard as I showed with the examples. You'd be hard pressed to find a single football logo (from hundreds of thousands) that is set up the way this guy is attempting to push... its unlikely he even cares and is just attempting to irritate.

I even pointed out to him that this is how they all are on Wikipedia and proved it with diffs, but no... he decided to imaturely persue a grudge.

Try any club from anywhere in the world...Liverpool, Everton, Boca Juniors, Santos, Shakhtar, PSV Eindhoven, Flamengo, Ajax, LA Galaxy, River Plate, Valencia, Arsenal, Benfica, Porto, Red Star Belgrade, Borussia Dortmund, Sao Paulo, Fiorentina, Feyenoord, Aston Villa, Olympique Marseille, Celtic, Rangers, Galatasaray SK, Fenerbahce Steaua Bucureşti, England, Russia, Argentina, United States.... yep all are the same as the way I uploaded them, which proves Yamla is going against the general standard of all of the football logos on here. - Deathrocker 17:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag for the logos clearly mandates that a detailed rationale is required. As already said just because there are lots of broken things which require fixing, doesn't mean it's ok to create more broken things. And as already said, you had a choice of trying to deal with your disagreement with this constructively (not attacking the editor, discussion, broadening discussion if still unhappy etc. etc.) but choose the other path. --pgk 17:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking the editor & not discussing? You're having a laugh aren't you?... I went to his talkpage and politely stated that this is how they are ALL set out[50], in an attempt to discuss in the first place. I followed that path thanks, if you had read my request and followed the diffs, you'd know this already...

And as explained previously I'd tend to go with the concensus and general standard of every football logo on Wikipedia which is hundreds of thousands. Why the hell should I go against the standard of how every other football logo is on here, just so somebody with a grudge who can't administrate properly can find an other way to try feably to irritate me? - Deathrocker 18:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were informed that WP:FU and the license text itself indicated that you are in fact required to provide a detailed fair-use rationale. I noted that the fact that other images violate this does not exempt you from your obligations. You then continued to remove the image tag from the images after I had told you this was not permitted. While editing the Wikipedia, you are required to adhere to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and this includes the image description page. You were blocked because of your refusal to follow these requirements. --Yamla 18:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I your idea of addressing this constructively is your message on his talk with statements such as "A valiant effort on your part to stop the progress of users work on football articles though.", then I guess you an my idea of being constructive are a million miles apart. Your instance that some precedent is set by having broken images elsewhere was and still is a nonsense. Consensus does not and never will override out core policies. --pgk 18:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So it just happens to be coincidence that every single logo on Wikipedia (no matter how famous the brand), does not have a rationale and this is general practice, see; Coca Cola, Pepsi,AOL, Republican Party, McDonalds, The Beatles, iTunes, Google, Dolce & Gabbana, Gucci,Toyota, Mercedes Benz, Harley Davidson, etc. Some of these are featured articles, which means the content (and thus the logo contained) has been deemed acceptable.

But all of a sudden, some lower league Sicilian football clubs do need said rationale for logos? And the "logs" page refresher who claims this should be done, just happens to be a guy with a grudge against me? Is this some kind of joke? It is a clear as day example of WP:TROLL by the so called "admin", and I will be looking lodge a complaint after for abuse of sysop powers. - Deathrocker 20:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker, save yourself some time. t's no news that there are thousand of images in Wikipedia's server violating it's core policies. But, as you have been told several times, this is no excuse for not applying the policy. If it's common practice to ignore the policy, we should start applying the policy, and not continue ignoring it. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker, it is not true that every single logo on the Wikipedia does not have a rationale. Take for example, the very first logo I looked at, Image:Microsoft logo.png. Regardless, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, if other images fail to measure up to our policy, this is grounds to tag those other images appropriately, not grounds for you to continue to violate those policies after you have been warned. Please let us know whether or not you will abide by these policies once your block expires. --Yamla 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will provide rationale for my uploaded logos when the block expires. But I seriously think you should find some other targets if you are genuinely interested in whether logo's have rationale or not... how on earth is making sure U.S. Siracusa's logo has rationale a higher priority than the most famous of all time; Coca Cola?

Notice how you haven't gone to all the images I have shown on this page and put the same tag as you did on the ones I uploaded. Thus the reason why I question your motives for targetting my images. - 22:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty Boy Floyd (band)

Hi, I deleted the article Pretty Boy Floyd (band) for you and moved the article Pretty Boy Floyd (American band) to that location. This is the correct way of moving an article, and preserves the history. Please remember to always move pages this way in the future, and seek an admin's help if you need a deletion to perform the move. Deco 21:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heavy metal article and the reverted version

Hello Deathrocker

Look,

I can understand you disagree with certain points of my editions, but I consider your reverted edition as excessive and in some way unfair. But as I’m a sensible person, I don't want to go into childish edit wars with you because that would be unproductive. As I presume you're a sensible person too and that you're sensitive to strict rational and well constructed arguments, I propose you to discuss on debatable points and find some compromise. Look, if we define clearly the conceptual framework we are working on, I'm inclined to revert some of my own editions to match that demand. But I refuse to accept that previous version you reverted, because as a musicologist I can't help but see many inaccuracies.

Regards Frédérick Duhautpas 11:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Towers of London

About your recent change at Towers of London:

(cur) (last) 21:50, 20 February 2007 Deathrocker (talk | contribs) (rv vandalism)

I told 12thMarquis:

I suggest if you you want "despite being a spoof punk band" to stick on the page:

Find a newspaper or magazine article that uses the words, "spoof punk band", directly when describing Towers of London.

Quote the sentence from the article and cite it.

Add the quote to another section (possibly "History") rather than the lead paragraph.

What do you think of this advice? --Kevinkor2 13:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy was just trolling, its a genuine band.. its article seems to recieve quite a bit of vandalism recently because the front man has been featuring on television shows. - Deathrocker 14:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:TROLL#Bad faith, "When you try to decide if someone is a troll, strive to assume they are not. Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. ... Remember and apply the principles laid out at Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers."

Therefore, even if 12thMarquis has been trolling (an assumption that I do not make), they can still make valuable contributions.

I am willing to help. --Kevinkor2 14:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SORRY I DON"T KNOW HOW TO MESSAGE YOU>>> ok, but who the hell are you to decide whether or not a band is obscure. this band have sold thousands of records, have an international toured following and stood firmly for gothic ideals in the face of fashion, and do not take kindly to your bloody minded attempts at sabotaging their legacy. Devil Doll are no less obscure, nor half the other bands on there. And are you so narrow-sighted as to disallow a band strictly because they have also experimented with techno or metal? something tells me you aren't neccesarily the rotten maggot you are currently acting, i would like to believe that you can cut this hard working band some well-deserved slack. their music might not be to your taste, but they put in the graft, reached the top for a few fleeting moments, crashed like stars and rocked very f---ing hard on the way down. i've just put them on myspace, check them out, although im fully expecting you to slate them or tell me its average at best. i expect nothing better...

Trolling and the 3-revert rule

Well, Deathrocker, I've now reverted your contributions to my talk page five times in the last few hours. Isn't it about time you bring me up on charges for violating the 3-revert rule? Let's get the whole history of this out on the table. I'll be interested to see how your edits to B movie, for instance, are regarded by the community.—DCGeist 19:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not harrass User:DCGeist by replacing his userpage with talkpage comments, and spamming him with image issues because of an edit war. Even if the image issues are correct, the entire issue might cause others not to WP:AGF on your part. — Deckill er 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll talk to him, but he does have a point. You were involved in a template dispute (and some minor issues on B movie, an article under FAR right now), so what made you decide to search all images he uploaded for problems immediately thereafter? I've warned Geist for questionable attacks in the edit summary, but could you explain why you decided to image police — something you have rarely done — on someone you've been involved with content disputes with on at least two occasions? I recommend just dropping the issue; problems with images are handled by bots. And, like I said, if the images have problems, they will (or have already been) brought up on the FA review of the article that those images belong to. It also looks like DC's harsh edit summaries were in response to your actions, so they will likely stop if you drop this. I see that both of you are at fault in different ways on this, so it is in both of your interests to stop. — Deckill er 21:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't worry, I'm taking a look at the images. I just want you to leave this problem up to myself and the FAR/FARC team so that this conflict is not escalated further. The problem is that it can be hard to AGF when two users are in an edit war or have been in edit wars, which is why I decided to warn both of you about what could be at fault on either end. — Deckill er 21:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gothic rock bands

Can you please read the talk page? I delete all red linked bands. If they are notable, they should have an article created. Thanks. --Dane ^~nya 09:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And how does one know which are promotional/vanity? It doesn't matter if some will "become" notable; they're non-notable now. I have a little music project myself; who decides if that will become notable? I've been maintaining many other lists, and removing unverified bands and non-notable ones, and so have many others. Since Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate directory, red links should either be created, or removed. --Dane ^~nya 09:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are they not on Wikipedia? What's the point of linking to a non-existent article? --Dane ^~nya 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it doesn't, Wikipedia was only formed a year earlier, and such a famous band was bound to be created as the project's popularity grew; it's just hard to see these particular articles ever being created. Regardless, I'm interested in making lists useful with information, and I find it hard to consider how something can be judged notable, but continue to exist without an article while still linking to it; makes it hard for others to decide notability, when anyone can add any band as a form of promotion.

I prefer to shoot first, ask questions later; in all my past experience, every band that I've removed which were later readded with an article were deleted for being non-notable, so you can see where I'm coming from. Let's list them at requested articles, so the lists have useful information, instead of littered with dead links, see what happens. I would rather a comprehensive, but useful list, instead of removing bands left right and centre. If they're notable, we'll see if anyone contributes. --Dane ^~nya 09:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course I don't! I'm aiming to help make Wikipedia the place to research, with verifiable references, so all this wouldn't happen in the first place. I've done Balaam and Ex-Voto at the requested pages, feel free to help. I won't be removing the lists now, because I'll take it on your word that they're notable, which is why I'm listing them now. --Dane ^~nya 09:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker

Many thanks. Looks like he died in 1932. The football club info was very interesting. Sicilian football isn't getting the best press at the moment.I hope this helps. Best wishes (and thanks again) from Ireland Notafly

Image:SerieATrophy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:SerieATrophy.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 00:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

N/A

You are adding tags to images I took, and to which I own. Ceoil 01:15, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have no interest in engaging in specious logic with you, waiting for admin comment; will take it from there. Ceoil 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal dispute

Hi Deathrocker. You have very clearly violated 3RR on Heavy Metal music. That the edits are "simple vandalism", as you suggest here, is inaccurate. They are complex edits that re-work the page and do not introduce vandalism. The anon, of course, also breached 3RR and returned the "rvv" comment. Neither of you are vandals: you are editors engaged in a content dispute that needs to be resolved on talk. You were reverted by multiple editors (the anon, Ceoil, and lastly M3tal H3ad) and two other editors have since edited the version you were reverting against, which suggests that they agree with it in principle. It is best to accept that you do not have consensus in a case like this, and raise concerns you have singly on talk rather than attempt another full-scale revert. You wrote in your first summary "claims that NWOBHM is "pure metal" but the originals some how werent is bias". OK: bring that up politely on talk and go from there.

Regarding following Ceoil, you are right that editors may look for policy violations in the editing logs of others, and right to be concerned about image tags. But given that you were engaged in a content dispute with the editor, the good of tagging a dubious fair use image is out-weighed by the bad of further enflaming the situation. I suggest you leave alone other pages and images he is working on. Marskell 05:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girl, you know it's true...ooo, ooo, ooo, I thank you

You can thank me later for sparing from you from whatever childish little idiot screwed around with your Talk page in an effort to make you look a total boob. I can only imagine how ticked off you are. Don't worry--if anyone ever tries to fuck with your Talk page again like that, I'll be on it like white on rice. That total bullshit will never be allowed to disgrace your well-respected user pages ever, ever again. As you so enchantingly put it, you don't "pussyfoot around," and neither shall I in your defense. Anyway, I just wanted to thank U for going to all the trouble to point out those images I'd failed to provide comprehensive info on. Keep up the good work, my sister. From one hardcore punk rock fan to another, Pogue mahone!!!—DCGeist 08:01, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please date image problem tags

I noticed that you marked quite a few images for having a missing source, missing rationale, or other such problem. Thank you for helping Wikipedia ensure that our images comply with guidelines. It would be appreciated if you could date these tags when you apply them. For example, in this edit, you'll see that the image is in categories with unknown dates and the no source tag is missing parameters. The easiest way to date these tags is to use {{subst:nrd}} for missing rationale, {{subst:nsd}} for missing source information, and {{subst:nld}} for missing licence information. These shortcuts automatically apply the correct template with the date parameters filled in. Please ask if you have any questions. Pagra shtak 00:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal dispute and related

Deathrocker, judging this in sum as an admin who has courted no earlier grudge or favour with either of you, I find all of this troubling, and I find your behaviour particularly troubling because you are on very thin ice, given previous problems. I found your Arb committee case after posting to you earlier today. If I had seen it at after noticing the 3rr violations last night, I might have blocked you immediately for your reverts. I decided afterwards that it might have been a good I did not see it; I posted the above warning not as a friend or a non-friend, but as a disinterested person stopping by who wasn't judging based on history. I'm sure you want to add good content to Wikipedia, and I assume you genuinely care about Heavy Metal related articles. But this is fact: according to the letter of the Arb case you are on the verge of a year block. I could've blocked you last night for a week, with the next block to be for a year.

That understood, I strongly advise the following: do not follow Ceoil's edits (forget this user's images); do not post to him or her personally (if you are baited, do not respond); if you want to reconcile, post regarding content only, with civility, on user talk; and do not revert.

I say all of this for your benefit; if this is taken to a wider community forum, I doubt it will go well for you. But I do think you have some knowledge to offer this community, and hope you can continue to do so. Marskell 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Explicit warning

Deathrocker, you have immediately archived warnings I have sent you as a disinterested admin. They were warnings. I've tried to be even-handed in writing them and I find your archiving unhelpful as it's against practice to remove warnings. It can all still be viewed in the history, but I re-post because I want it to be clear: you have been warned by me about a 3RR violation, and about the consequences of enflaming disputes, particularly considering a previous Arb case. This editor has not suggested you were only responsible for baiting, but did advise you against baiting.

To be explicit:

If you archive this post in short order (ie., before it can be shown that you've moved on from your recent disputes), I will take it to the Administrators Noticeboard and let people decide there. (Not as a punative thing—simply because, if my warnings are going to be shuffled off a talk page in minutes, I'll make a point of having other admins look at them.)
If it wasn't clear, I will block you for a week if I notice, from now on, you're violating ArbComm rulings regarding your editing. Marskell 21:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Huh? I don't understand. It was archived after I replied to it (as I do with all messages)".

My posts were, with hopefully open-minded and friendly phrasing, admin warnings from myself about your editing behaviour. In practice, it looks bad if you archive such warnings the same day (let alone the same hour) they arrive, because it suggests you want to hide criticism. If you continue to misunderstand, I will, as I suggest post to WP:AN/I for other disinterested admins to evaluate. Marskell 22:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Unfortunately I've had to block you. Rather than a week, I have escalated to 72 hours from your previous 48 hour blocks. These edits[51] [52] [53] are reverts, and there was an earlier revert over the disputed tag. I will post to the noticeboard and inform you. Marskell 08:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[54] is not a revert, try reading the edit summary and viewing the content, it is a re-working of the opening.[55] was adding of an extra source, to vertify.... also, a tag was previously blanked from the page[56] without the factuality issues been sorted out. (that counts as reverting simple vandalism and thus does not count towards revert total) - Deathrocker 08:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were shuffling the order of the content and undoing Wesley. It constitutes reverting. And your repeated citing of "simple vandalism" is tiresome. You're using it to evade your revert parole. Marskell 08:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undid Wesley in a straight revert a grand total of once.[57] Rewording information in the heading, in a new way is not a "revert".

Whether you are "tired" of users citing official editing policy when contributing Wikipedia is irrelevent. In simple vandalism it clearly states "blanking" falls under it. - Deathrocker 08:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I undid Wesley in a straight revert a grand total of once." Then I rest my case. The instructions from the Arb case were clear and my warnings were clear also: do not revert. Marskell 08:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ermm the Arb doesn't say I can't revert at all. It says I can once a day. - Deathrocker 08:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no more than 2 times in any 7 day period. Regardless, I consider at least three reverts to the page to have occurred (including over the tag). I'm not going to post here further. I have left a note at ANI, here. Marskell 08:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As explained already; a user blanked a tag without sorting the issues it pertained to, I reverted the simple vandalism. (which does not count against revert total, simple as)

The first one you claimed was a revert, you didn't even bother to view the actual content of... because if you took the time to, you would have seen that it was rewriting a new heading[58].. which in no understanding of the word a "revert". If you feel you are able to administrate, then perhaps you should view edits before making incorrect claims in regards to them please. - 08:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I count 12 reverts to Heavy metal music in the past 24 hours. Of these edits, you made 4 or 5 that count towards the three revert rule. --Kevinkor2 09:33, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits:

revert the following material that was added by Frédérick Duhautpas's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112762683&oldid=112760296

As the original wave of heavy metal bands began to wane, the late 1970s brought the New Wave of British Heavy Metal which stripped away much of the music's blues influence in favor of a harder and faster "pure" metal sound.<ref>

“Heavy Metal” in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music, under the direction of Paul Du Noyer Flame Tree Publishing Co Ltd (August 22, 2003) p.96 'ISBN- 1904041701
“Hard-Rock” in The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Music under the direction of Paul Du Noyer Ibid. p.78</ref>

Heavy metal became extremely popular in the 1980s, at which time many of the now existing subgenres first evolved. These metal subgenres, often more aggressive and extreme than metal music of the past, were often restricted to underground audiences, but some like thrash metal and glam metal were able to gain mainstream commercial success. In recent years subgenres like nu metal have broadened the scope of what is considered heavy metal while much of the metal music of the past is being critically reevaluated.

Your edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112760296&oldid=112724550

reverts the edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112724550&oldid=112707356

that blanked the {{disputed}} tag. Your edit counts towards the three revert rule because placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

Blanking tags without sorting out the issues with the article, falls under the blanking part of WP:VANDAL, nowhere in the "What is not vandalism" section does it state otherwise. - Deathrocker 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Deathrocker, that WP:VANDAL lists "Improper use of dispute tags" as vandalism and states, "Do not remove [the dispute tags] unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled." Unfortunately, it also says, "Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule." (Note: The preceeding sentence is a direct quote from WP:VANDAL. Search for simple vandalism to find it.--Kevinkor2 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112632760&oldid=112632545

removes the link added by Ours18's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112458569&oldid=112456358

Encyclopaedia Metallum, largest online metal band database

Frédérick Duhautpas's edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112770452&oldid=112770366

self-reverts parts of his edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112770366&oldid=112769171

Self-reversion does not count towards the three revert rule.

The edits

are reverts of your reverts.

What does the stuff below have to do with me? - Deathrocker 11:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for not being clear. Only the stuff in the grey box are your reverts. The remaining 7 reverts are included only to get a complete list of all the reverts to Heavy metal music after 09:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC).--Kevinkor2 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following edit by Wint reverts simple vandalism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112673046&oldid=112672966

made by 210.18.232.149's edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112672966&oldid=112656034

''''BY THE POWER OF METAL!! STEFANOS RULES!!!! DOWN WITH EMOS!!!''''

WesleyDodds's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112535866&oldid=112503802

reverts the following text deleted by 71.77.0.96's edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=112503802&oldid=112503691

Classical music is "art" music(serious music)whereas heavy metal is popular music.<ref>

Nicholas Cook et Nicola Dibben, " Musicological Approaches to Emotion" in Music and Emotion, Oxford University Press, 2001, p.56, ISBN 0192631888 :
- Quote: "Analyses of popular music also sometimes reveal the influence of “art traditions. An example is Walser’s linkage of heavy metal music with the ideologies and even some of the performance practices of nineteenth-century Romanticism. However, it would be clearly wrong to claim that traditions such as blues, rock, heavy metal, rap or dance music derive primarily from ‘art” music"</ref>

Image tagging for Image:ToddYouth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ToddYouth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

It was written poorly and in an unencyclopedic fashion, and you know it. Also, way to go through my edits simply because I reverted one of your biased edits. Inhumer 20:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, the fact that I like Grind means I can't possibly like and know about other types of music, Mr. "Musical Guru"? Inhumer 20:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, don't accuse me of using sockpuppets. Inhumer 22:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's right that it was written like a pile of rubbish, as is 99% of other Metal related articles on Wikipedia. Unless someone's going to clean it up, I don't think we should hold onto fancruft tripe. LuciferMorgan 18:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Archives

Hi,

I'll make this short:

You claim in your edit summary: "copyright violations & other policy vios which must be removed as per WP:EL (no matter what the spammers think)".

Your copyright violation hypothesis has been disproved by another user on the talk page of the article.
Other policy violations are quite debatable and contested. See the same talk page.
If it is us (Inhumer, Ours18, as well as myself) that you are calling spammers, then all I have to say that it does matter because we are Wikipedians as much as you are.

A simple warning next to the link as Ours18 suggested is more than enough to inform the reader that some people consider Encyclopaedia Metallum's definition of metal as controversial. If you are not happy about it, discuss it on the talk page.

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I'm reading the talk page, and I can't see where it hasn't been disproved. Óðinn clearly pointed out that copyright violations are not present. Plus, Wikipedia allows promotional pictures (band pictures or logos) and album covers to be uploaded, so why wouldn't it allow it in an external source? For the conflict of interest, it might be the case for Ours18, but it is certainly not for me or Inhumer. For the other policies that the website supposedly violates, I have responded to you on the talk pages two days ago and you still haven't replied. However its not as if you were too busy to take care of this issue for you have continued to erase the link from the article. And I think you should think over your definition of spam... There is a difference between spam and a giant metal band archive that exhibits a controversial definition of the inclusion of certain subgenres in the metal genre. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the policy long ago. I think you may have a prejudice against members of Encyclopaedia Metallum. If a user adds the official MySpace of band X to their article and the user has a MySpace account, does that make it spam? No. Although it is not necessarily a good link to include because it is recommended not to include such websites (MySpace) in articles. If you have a problem with what you call EMers, then suggest to an administrator to block all Wikipedians who have accounts on Encyclopaedia Metallum. Anyways, this is not the question. The question is whether or not Enyclopaedia Metallum is to be included in the external links section. Okay, then show me the link & directly quote the policy that gives restrictions to promotional pictures inside an external link. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please don't use sarcasm with me. I am not a person to joke around with. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) I am not spouting rubbish and even if I was, you have no right to say so.

2) I have been on the policy page.

Links to be avoided:

Advertising and conflict of interest - Advertising: definitely not the case here. CoI: As I have already said, it might be the case for Ours18, but it is not the case for me or Inhumer.
Links requiring registration - Not the case here (registration doesn't bring you more info).
Foreign-language links - Not the case here, it's pure English.
Redirection sites - Not the case here.
Rich media - Not the case here.

3) Please don't be aggressive towards me, for I am not towards you. Comments like read those words over a couple of times so it sinks in before acusing me of any more nonsense should be avoided.

4) I am not accusing you of anything, I only disagree with you.

I will probably not reply until tomorrow (UTC).

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 21:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, don't know if this is the place to put it, but... http://www.prickmag.net/review_aiden.html http://www.interpunk.com/item.cfm?Item=114444 http://www.victoryrecords.com/aiden Oh, and http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:gmb1z8oa4yv8 has "emo" and "post hardcore" under styles, not genre." GreenAiden555 22:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker

Decoyman turns out to be the wrong Whitaker so I changed the page back, leaving your Whitaker (sadly) without a page.Many thanks,though, he was an interesting read. I hope he reappears. Best wishes from Ireland Robert Notafly

Place Football Abuse here

Why did you move the Football (soccer) article? --202.47.49.216 11:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whitaker

You are right."Alls well that ends well"--so many thanks for the revert which I was just about to fix back to your last version. Yes the name must be unique. The confusion must lie in the Italian biographies. Very sorry not to have checked more carefully.Born not too far away from Arnold myself by the way (Ilkeston, Derbyshire)though I live in Ireland Robert (Nash, Ulster Museum)Curiously I'm going to live in Italy too.Notafly

Check user procedure

You recently compiled and listed a case at requests for checkuser. A checkuser or clerk has requested you supply one or more diffs to justify the use of the checkuser procedure in the case, in accordance with the procedures listed in the table at the top of the requests for checkuser page. For an outcome to be achieved, we require that you provide these diffs as soon as possible. This has been implemented to reduce difficulties for checkusers, and is essential for your case to be processed. A link to your recently-created case which has this information missing is here. Thanks for your co-operation. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC), checkuser clerk.[reply]

I moved the case to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kwame Nkrumah by the way, since a checkuser was filled before under that name against this user -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be ok now, sorry for the mess I had a colleague talking to me at the same time. Sorry again! -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English

Do you understand English? What you linked says it is likely, not that it is certain, and I am not the user you think I am.

Furthermore, note that you are not allowed to remove the fair use tag from the image.--Francis Escort 20:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TOwers of London

Hi Deathrocker. As the self appointed custodian of the Towers of London wiki page can you please explain how the description of the Towers of London rock band as controversial is a neutral POV. Can you use your eclectic understanding of popular music to elaborate on what '77 style British punk is, i have started the wiki page for you. It would appear to be as useful a description as saying that Wayne Rooney plays '74 style Dutch football or Andy Flintoff plays '81 style English cricket. Regards Jackspinner 08:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcing RFCU blocks

Hey there. I see we've both spent our share of time scratching the Panairjdde rash. Anyhow, a CheckUser hit doesn't automatically result in a block; you then have to bring the results to the attention of the admins on the Incidents' noticeboard, as I did here. Just telling you for your future reference! Dppowell 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal

First off, please try and be more civil. I understand why you might be frustrated, but lines like "It would be great if you could stop raping the glam metal section of the heavy metal music article which you clearly have no prior knowledge of." I'm a pretty even-tempered guy so I really don't care, but please be more courteous to others.

Now, onto your points. Yes, I do know what I am talking about because I just read three books and watched a number of documentaries on heavy metal so I can help fix up the article. Please have faith that what I am adding has some merit and has been carefullt considered.

Specific issues:

1. I wouldn't take the "Influences" section of Allmusic as gospel. While certainly it is the most reliable music site on the web, that reliabity rests largely on the bios, the discographies, and the charts. The Influences and Followers sections can be updated with suggestions from users, and sometimes aren't entirely accurate or leave out important acts. For example, one of Green Day's main influences as relayed through a number of interviews is Husker Du, but neither band's Allmusic page mentions this. In the instance of inluences, a direct quote or comment about influences from a book or magazine article is more reliable than what Allmusic says. While the LA bands most certainly were influenced by the original metal bands, the Ian Christe book establishes that it was the NWOBHM that really got the scene going, as the people in those bands were avid collectors of NWOBHM records and then started bands.

2. I didn't see a source for Ozzy and Priest messing with glam metal, and in regards to the article as a whole, it's somewhat irrelevant.

3. Minor confusion with the line "several professional and amateur magazines devoted exclusively to the genre emerged, including Kerrang!" The line isn't in reference to glam metal specifically, rather heavy metal as a whole's increasing popularity in the 1980s.

4. Ratt did form in San Diego; however, they played in LA a lot and were considered part of the LA scene. All the books here place Ratt in the LA scene, and this is reenforced by Steven Percy's comments in the VH1 documentary Heavy: the History of Metal where he talks about the LA scene and how Metallica (before they moved to San Francisco) didn't like his band.

Hopefully that clears up any confusion. WesleyDodds 07:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockhunting

The administrators do not have the time or motivation to keep chasing down Panairjdde and his socks, so if we're serious about helping them enforce his ban, we need to get organized. Jayjg has explained to me that Panairjdde can't be blocked by IP range because too many innocent editors could get caught in the crossfire. Panairjdde has disrupted so many articles that I'm sure there will be no shortage of editors willing to assist, but I thought I'd approach you first.

I've started to put together a list of resources needed to file RFCUs here. I also want to compile a list of articles that he is known to frequent, culled from the contributions of his most recent socks. We can obviously add to it as time goes on. Tell me what you think. Dppowell 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jayjg has been very responsive, but he's only one person, and I don't think he's on every day. I just spent 30 minutes reverting and re-reverting Pan's edits, including his placing a sock tag on my own userpage. I finally reported him to WP:AIV, and an admin blocked him. I guess my thinking is that he's only one guy, and if we have a committed group of volunteers who are working to contain him (we probably can't stop him entirely), we can make it very labor-intensive for him to continue evading his ban. I would say "just ignore him," but that only serves to encourage him. Dppowell 22:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "project" page is ready! Dppowell 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Violation of ARBCOM injunction. Note that the next violation appears to be a one-year block. — Yamla 15:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

see below

Decline reason:

Declined by Yamla, declined by me. Don't abuse this template. —Pilot guy cleared for takeoff 22:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Request review by blocking admin user:AnonEMouse, regarding AN/I

The content Ceoil defaced[59], blanking many sources I took a long time finding and had added to the article (along with other such work), was not to do with the actual content from his perspective. It was malicious trolling against my work in "revenge" of me correcting licensing tags on some of his images I came across earlier in the month.[60] The user has been harassing me over the past month, following my edits, even violating Wikipedia:No legal threats at one point, claiming that he'd "see me in court"[61] for correcting licensing on his images before.

I don't see how I am the one issued with a block, when he has commited such a blatant example of trolling, vandalising my edits not for content reasons... but just to set my work back. All I did is remove such edits. He seems to have serious issues and most importantly is in violation of WP:STALK, WP:VANDAL and WP:TROLL. - Deathrocker 15:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the message Yamla[62], I specifically requested a review from the blocking admin AnonEMouse at the very start of the request, who was involved with the case. Not you. - Deathrocker 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you are abusing the unblock template. Please contact the blocking admin directly. The unblock template is to be used only for general block reviews, not to have the blocking admin review. Also, you are not permitted to blank unblock declines. --Yamla 15:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How am I supposed to contact the blocking admin directly when I myself am blocked from editing anything but my talkpage? Hense why I put the crystal clear note at the start of the request. - Deathrocker 16:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can send an email to the blocking admin. Or you can use the helpme template to request that someone leave a message for you on his talk page. --Yamla 16:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for input, Emo Rap

Would you help with a dispute in emo rap? The dispute is evident on the talk page: Talk:Emo_rap#Revert_05:31.2C_26_March_2007. User:Xcryoftheafflictedx has proven difficult to work with. Viewing the recent edit history going back to 05:31, 26 March 2007 would be helpful in getting an idea of what has been going on. The dispute is that I would like to preserve some of the content (the opening paragraph), and the structure of the entry (espicially the itemized criticism section). This is taking the from of a revert war between myself and this other user. This user is pushing POV, and has a higer regard for their writing abilities than appears justified. Actually, looking at the user's talk page it seems that he has a history of acting unilaterally, and being difficult to work with: User_talk:Xcryoftheafflictedx Thanks in advance. AThomas203 19:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it does seem the article has a lot of POV issues. I placed a tag on a section the other day (concerning weasel words) because of the unsourced POV sentence that says "emo rap is an abomination or bastardization of hip hop music". I'll take a look at it once my block has expired, can't help your probs with the user at the moment though I'm afraid, cause of my block. Thanks. - Deathrocker 21:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you just popped up on my watchlist...

Just prior to the expiry of your current block, I'm going to post a thread regarding your behaviour at Wikipedia:Community noticeboard (I'll time it so you can respond). I'm not thinking of it as an extra punishment at all, but more "can we save this user from a year block?" Your editing behaviour suggests that you will receive a year block within, say, three weeks of being unblocked from latest. If you can think of ideas—a buddy system maybe?—think of them now, so you can suggest them to the community.

If I fail to do this it'll likely be because I'm travelling; but the idea will have been suggested on your user talk, which you can point others to. I actually think it's within your interest to pursue something like this. Marskell 21:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean a "buddy system"? - Deathrocker 06:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was thinking of a disinterested person you could ask "do you think I'm within bounds editing X page in Y manner." But that would depend on somebody being willing. Another option is to get a very firm vow from you that you will revert literally nothing except blatant vandalism and give targets for good behaviour. If you went three months, for instance, with no revert problem you'd move back from the year block to a week and so on. Marskell 13:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I might consider having somebody to consult in certain cases of editing, but not reverting at all is out of the question really. I mean in this case, my work was reverted by a user who wasn't interested in the actual content and was just doing it to be a troll. I think my problem is, I don't suffer fools lightly at all. - Deathrocker 20:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your problem, if I may, is that you are going to be blocked for a year soon enough. I checked (out of concern, not out of malice): you've been editing apx. sixteen months and have been blocked thirty times. If your argument is "but, he was a troll," then there's little point in my raising it on WP:CN or anywhere. Marskell 20:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Internet trolls exist, how is it not a valid argument if I have diffs to back up a certain user indulging themselves in such negative activites? The diffs I provided speak volumes, all people have to do is check them out; that is what I went through the trouble of looking them up for.

Also your statistics are way off. If you actually took the time to read the logs, instead of just counting you would see many times the word "unblocked" (or changing the length)... because incorrect blocks were handed out.

The majority of my blocks are for the most inane of things, like violating a 1RR... its not to do with the actual content or work I am adding here. Its a shame that some admins are inept and involve themselves in things, but can't be bothered look into them correctly... only to later realise "oops I was wrong to block there", hense the reason you see so many ("unblocked" instances in my record). Seriously, its like arresting somebody for a small insignificant violation who is doing a lot of positive work in the community, while letting trolls and vandals do whatever they want... common sense seems to be a foreign concept. Lunacy. - Deathrocker 06:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting help mediating a dispute in Emo_rap

Hi, I believe your Weasel Words block has expired on [Emo_rap]. I fell that Xcryoftheafflictedx is still being disruptive.

Would you help join in establishing consensus on the issue? The relevant details are found here: Talk:Emo_rap#Proposol_to_revert.2C_04_April_2007 and in the history of changes to emo rap AThomas203 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy metal FARC

You should read the article's FARC. It was pointed out here that the references you added to the "Mainstream dominance" section were unclear and unformatted. WesleyDodds 10:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voltaire + goth category

Hi there. You just removed the 'goth' category from the Voltaire article, and I reckon it should stay. Voltaire is viewed as an expert in the modern gothic subculture- he is the published author of What is Goth? (among other, similar books), he has been interviewed as an expert on the subculture, and many of his songs revolve around it. He also talks about the gothic subculture in many interviews. He is far more involved with the gothic subculture than just about any other band I am aware of. Your opinions? J Milburn 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Musically, yes, but he isn't just a musician. I would say he is one of the few 'experts' on the subculture. J Milburn 10:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My subpage

I'm a newb, be so kind as to tell me how to remove it from those categories. Thanks muchly. :) ZachPG 21:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you muchly, I appreciate it. ZachPG 18:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

I'm just backing up an article thats nominated for deletion.. I didn't realize someone stuck in catagories... thanks.TheDarknessVisible 04:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic rock bands category

The removal of the other categories has nothing to do with how much "rock" makes up the form. Rather, it's just to remove category redundancy. The gothic rock groups category is listed under the alternative rock groups category, which is filed under the rock music groups category, which is filed under the musical groups by genre category. It's just a little cleanup. Similarly, if you ever see a band page tagged with both, say, California rock bands and American rock bands, it's ok to remove the former category because the entire category "California rock bands" is listed in the American rock bands category. Sorry about any misunderstanding; multiple categories can get messy (the punk rock ones are particularly bad) so it's best to condense tags as much as possible for easy reference on topics. WesleyDodds 10:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ChristDposter.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:ChristDposter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Abu badali ^(talk) 19:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Ascension

Why did you remove the goth tag (and incorrectly at that, at least, from the info box) for This Ascension? It would appear their current record label (Projekt) considers their albums to be of that genre. Bkavanaugh 13:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York City

I think it would be best if York City had its own seperate history page - every club who have a FA have a history article. It allows a summary of the clubs history to be placed on the clubs article, and if the reader wishes to read more they can see it in full detail on the history article. Thanks, Mattythewhite 17:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Black Parade

If you can explain to me how the article is POV, I won't remove the tag. It's that simple. We removed the tag because you failed to give an adequate explanation. Just because I enjoy listening to MCR doesn't mean I'm a complete fanboy. I wasn't removing the tag because I felt you were insulting the band, I removed it because you couldn't give us an adequate explanation. mcr616 _Speak! 21:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to come off as an ass and I apologize if I did. Bear in mind I only removed the tag because that's what the majority of the editors agreed upon. Also, I do realize that slapping you with a vandalism tag is wrong, but that wasn't a personal insult, and I'm sorry you took it that way. mcr616 _Speak! 21:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm open to suggestions about how we could make the article NPOV, if that's what you think it really is. mcr616 _Speak! 21:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you look at Moralis and Ofren's rebuttals, the site you suggested doesn't meet the source requirements. Also, we did include negative reviews in the article. It's not that I'm trying to be a fanboy, but I just can't see what you mean. mcr616 _Speak! 21:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't given us ANYTHING regarding what you consider to be wrong with the article. You say that we've made the article sound like it performed better than it did. Cite an example of this so that we can do something about it. Simply re-adding a tag and then failing to do anything with it is not helpful, it isn't productive, it's just disruptive and annoying. Right now it feels to us like you're just trying to harass us, not to help us improve the article.

If the tag is still there at midnight tonight, and you haven't given us any actionable examples of why you placed it (as per WP:NPOVD), I'll be requesting informal mediation from the Mediation Cabal. I do hope you'll accept their involvement, as we're not getting anywhere with this petty back-and-forthing. --Moralis 21:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After further investigating your argument with mcr616 on your talk pages, I've realized that you seem to believe that there was an ongoing discussion of POV issues when you added the tag. The last discussion of NPOV issues appears in Archive 2 around 21 January, and was not a dispute but simply conversation amongst ourselves. The discussion was in response to a passing suggestion by a GA reviewer, and this was most likely what the phrase "the issue has been brought up before" was referring to. --Moralis 18:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Rossington Main F.C.

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Daddy Kindsoul! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former players

Why exactly should those notable players be shown on the main York page? Why do they stand out from the rest of the notable former players? Do you prefer them to the rest? And some of those, such as Andy Bishop and Marco Gabbiadini, don't actually meet the criteria. -- Mattythewhite 20:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "notable" then? -- Mattythewhite 20:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I could extend the criteria to a wider variety, such as top scorers, record transfer fee players etc. Although, I don't agree with there being particular players on the main article still. They shouldnt be given better treatment than the rest. -- Mattythewhite 20:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Football infoboxes

Can we please discuss, preferably at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football before we get into an editing war about these? We obviously have different opinions about them, and a discussion is just starting over there. As to the list of Champions on the NPL page, yes they are on the divisional articles, but I am trying to make these re-directs to the league pages as there is no information on non-league divisions that could not be better shown on the main league article - fchd 12:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

Your continual reversions of my edits on this page are unacceptable. You are obviously a little bitter at Manchester United for reasons I wouldn't deign to fathom. Suffice it to say, I have been more than patient so far, but if you continue I will report you for ignoring Wikipedia's NPOV policy. PeeJay 08:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas you seem to be intent on making Manchester United fans look like the sole instigators of the incident. Feel free to report me, but I think you'll find it is you who is in the wrong. PeeJay 08:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reality of the situation, which you seem to be oblivious to, was that Roma fans started assaulting the Man Utd fans with missiles from over the barrier. The United fans responded in kind, and then the police stepped in, forcing back the United fans with violent methods. It was only then that the United fans started to attack the police, and in my book, when someone fights back against someone who is attacking them, it's called retaliation, hence the edits. PeeJay 08:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But there was something to control, namely the United fans retaliating against the Roma fans! The picture you are referencing shows a snapshot of the incident, and while I don't deny it is a picture of a United fan throwing a chair at a police officer, you can blatantly see that the police were already interspersed amongst the United fans, indicating that the man throwing the chair is retaliating against police violence.

Another issue here seems to be that you are reverting the edits explaining the incidents from the match against Lille, which indicates to me that you are nothing more than a United-basher. PeeJay 09:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but nonetheless, the actions of the Man Utd fans against the police was a retaliation to what the police were doing. I think we're agreed that the police had to escalate their efforts due to the actions of the United fans, but to make a bare-faced statement like "United fans attacked riot police" is a little bit weighted. I am willing to admit that there was a number of United fans involved in unacceptable violence against police, but what you said was just beyond the pale. And yes, the beatings some of the police handed out were "indiscriminate". One woman was nearly killed, FFS, and she was just trying to get away from the incident. Please try to read your sources before abusing them to suit your purposes.

Oh, and you still haven't explained the issue about the Lille incident edits. PeeJay 09:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Death

Altho I think the band's name and body of work is icky, you did a great job defending the image. I agree with you 100%. --Knulclunk 14:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spal 1907 -> SPAL 1907

The letters meaned something. "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor" was refounded as Spal 1907 a couple of years ago after the cancellation of the old team. Please, ask for a revertion of your move. CapPixel 10:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Italian wiki is wrong too. Spal doesn't _officially_ mean anything anymore. Neither Spal's official homepage nor Lega Calcio Serie C's official homepage indicates that Spal still means something. Previously, when it meaned something, it was always written in extended form in both official and Serie C's homapages, or at least in dotted form. See the old logo. CapPixel 10:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that "Spal", since that old society has disappeared, doesn't _officially_ mean "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor" anymore. The new society is not registered as "Società Polisportiva Ars et Labor 1907 SpA", but as "Spal 1907 SpA". CapPixel 11:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A 1952-53

Please, follow the standard agreed on the [Italian Football talk page]. Thanks. CapPixel 18:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donny Tourette

The only part of my edit that could be seen as breaking the NPOV whatsit would be the change from 'Tourette also called Simon Amstell "Anstis" referring to former BBC children's presenter Toby Anstis.' to 'Tourette also mistakenly addressed Simon Amstell as "Anstis", referring to former BBC children's presenter Toby Anstis.'.

Firstly, if this was POV, you should edit the part which is a problem, not revert all my changes (familiarise yourself with the page about when and how to revert).

Secondly, the idea that Donny was mistaken (and not calling Amstell 'Anstis' for some other reason) is supported by the show itself, when Donny says "I thought your name was Anstis."

Is there anything i've missed? -Groveller 10:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Donny was the one who missed the comedy memo. While i disagree with your view that it was a joke on Donny's part, and believe that the episode itself backs me up, i'm willing to concede the point. Is that all? -Groveller 11:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie A 1952-53 and onwards

Please, follow the standard agreed on the WikiProject Italian Football talk page. Thanks. CapPixel 09:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The_Answer_(band)

(138.38.235.17 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC))I would like to know why you keep editing them to be a heavy metal band when they clearly are not that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.235.17 (talk) 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image tagging

I notice you've been tagging a lot of images with the "no fair use rationale" template - thanks! I have, however, had to remove some of your tags since that is only a speedy deletion criterion if the image was uploaded after May 4, 2006. Please try to make a note of the upload date to avoid mistakes involving this rule (I think it's somehow related to the timeframe when this policy was enacted). (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Answer genre

http://www.tourdates.co.uk/theanswer/ "Genre: Rock Sub Genre: Classic"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ "We're just a good time rock and roll band" Cormac Neeson

If one person labels a band as traditional metal, that does not mean you call them heavy metal which is very misleading. It would be more accurate to describe them as an orchestra. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.38.231.53 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

From your source: "When guitarist Paul Mahon and bassist Michael Waters started playing their bluesy, Zeppelin-infused rock compositions". Which is clear as Mahon's tunings, song writing style and scales are all blues related.

Catania's jerseys

First of all, Catania's shirt colours are rossazzurri (light blue and red), that differs from Palermo's original choice, that was dark blue and red, the same as Genoa CFC. The red-blue combination of colours was widely common at the time, so I don't think Palermo really gave their shirts to Pro Patria. In addition, according to this website [63] (note: it's in Italian, don't know if you can understand it), Pro Patria wore red and white jerseys (even if it wouldn't seem from the photo, so perhaps they're wrong). Anyway, I've made a quick search around the web and I found nothing about the colours' choice. --Angelo 17:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict

I have put this article up for arbitration. Please make a statement regarding the article at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#2007 AS Roma-Manchester United conflict. I have already done so. PeeJay 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northern League

Why have you (twice) moved the Northern League (football) page to Northern Football League? Northern League is the correct name and the (football) suffix is used to disambiguate. Northern Football League is not the name of the competition. - fchd 06:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your reasoning is no excuse to move it to an incorrect title. It is never referred to as the Northern Football League. I won't revert back at this stage, I'll try to seek some consensus. - fchd 07:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-league football - feel free to state your point of view. Incidentally, the logs don't confirm your assertion on my talk page that "Because I moved it to "Northern League (football)" in the first place from Northern Football League before realising that it doesn't follow the pattern of all the other English football league articles" - the first move you appear to have made of the article was on the 11th December 2006 from NL(f) to NFL. - fchd 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You concerns about Alternative rock

Hi, I read about your concerns re slack editors on the artcile "Alternative rock"; to which you have had minimum imput. A report on IAM might be the best course. Trawling their log file is another option, although we're all getting tired of that; by this stage. I'll leave it up to you, musical guru.

I can't figure it out though, why are you always in a minority? Why do you reckon that is Deathrocker; given your status, both within article space and your user space, as a genuine musical guru? Weird. Ceoil 01:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have a sense of humour anyway, Deathrocker, I'll give you that. Ceoil 10:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tool

Seven or eight vs. 1 does not seem enough to establish a specious consensus, even on your terms. Has it occured to to you that instead of authomatic reverts, you would be better spening mammys money on medical research. You are obviously an unhapply soul, speaktome. Ceoil 23:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You flatter yourself by imagining you are anything but a pest. It took you four edits to type your reply in my talk and in a way thats what makes me fucked offed; if feel like im a playground batteling with a baby. Ceoil 00:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reply quicker than this might get my respect, but...no. Ceoil 00:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You're talking to the Daddy, so please conduct your reply in a respectful manner if you're going to discuss articles with I" --Good one. Ha ha. Or whatever. You were quite funny before, but maybe that was a once off..no lutz here. Ceoil 00:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you have other users to troll, I understand; see you back on TemplatePunkbox when your block log allows, ie tuesday morning; 10:19am; You me, Geist, Dodds, Spylab; it'll be great. Ceoil 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no no no no no no no. I dont watch you. You turn up as as a annoying complainer at pages I contribute to. Troll like, it seems to me. What is it you do again, outside of pushing a cock rock POV? Ceoil 01:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The gaps between your replys get longer and longer. The humane thing here is to just revert your anti consensus ramblings on Template:Punkbox, and hope others pick up the tiny pieces. Bye Ceoil 01:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't asssume that other editors are folied (for DR & slower editors: fooled) by transparent sillyness such as this. Boring, try harder please, or just go away. Ceoil 01:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems I have multiple instances of 1RR on my talk and, espically on Template:Punkbox; going back over many months. Ceoil 02:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If thats all the Daddy can offer, then well, I'm sorry. There is a bigger story here. But leave TemplatePunkbox alone, eh?Ceoil 02:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation is finished; until you revert on Template:Punkbox gain. Lets just leave the history as it is. Ceoil 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect; you contiually bait editors into pointless edit wars and I dont watch you; but you keep on cropping up, making personal attacks, unable to undertake discussion without makeing it personal. We have met on a few page before; and more than one other editor has been imidated by your bully approach; You have trolled my logs. My personal openion is that you have a well meaning account but are over run by the lutz Ceoil 02:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its too late for that now. Ceoil 03:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could put that in explainable english, or based you troll on explble words, that would be great. Otherwise, I thought I had a better enemy. Ceoil 03:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so, in simple English. You have a troll account. You make many good edits, but typicaly you bait and seek to hurt. How about that. Ceoil 03:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)10[reply]

My clear openion is that you dont give a damn about others openion. I think the best option is to seek others openion. Ceoil 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do on my talk what I like, thanks very much. Ceoil 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stating facts, no violations here. Please stop giving me reasons, though. If you toned down your agressive attitude to multiple other users, I might not be tempted. Ceoil 21:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for god's sake. Do you know at all what is going on. I'll tell you in small words. You are an agressive pest, and hinder the project. I am an editor, and I want to do my work without being stalked, bullied, distracted, or intimidated. That is what this is about. Ceoil 00:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its probable you believe that, and that is the problem. You do not realised how destructive you are, and there is, as far as I can see, no possiblilty of reform on your side. I'm working towards a RFC; lets break contact and work on our arguments. Ceoil 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Your on, although spanner is a compliment in Ireland. Ceoil 00:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how do you know what a spanner means. You are right about the comment though, it was uncalled for, and I apologise. Ceoil 00:37, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not aimed at you, but [64]. Ceoil 00:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexborough Town

Hi, I deleted your recent article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources that it meets the notability guidelines. Best to write complete article on your word processor or in a sandbox before saving for editing Jimfbleak.^{Talk to me.}06:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read your message on my talk page. The point I was trying to make above was that I have no way of knowing whether a stub will be added to - I can only work on what I see, that's why I'm suggesting that an article is posted in more-or-less complete form.

You comment on the other messages on my talk page - of course people are going to ask why their articles were deleted if they are not happy with the deletion summary. You will note that some of the articles remain red-linked, because the creators accepted that they were not within the guidelines. Of course I make mistakes, but judging on what people post on my talk without reading the replies or the original articles is a litle unfair Jimfbleak.^{Talk to me.}07:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AlanShearer96-97.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:AlanShearer96-97.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Qwghlm 09:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove replaceable fair use tags

While you're more than welcome to contest the tag, please note that it explicitly says "Do not remove this tag". Thanks. --Ytny (talk) 15:42, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against tagging an image when I believe it may not be free use or invalid fair use. Like I said, you're free to contest it, but it's up to the closing admin to decide whether the tag was appropriate or not. --Ytny (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing that out - I've left my explanation on the image talk page. Cheers! --Ytny (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep removing the replaceable tag on Image:CamoranesiWorldCupWin.JPG. The reason is explained in the image talk. --Ytny (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

L.A. Guns

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy editing. such as here - Tiswas^(t) 15:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement of {{Infobox Band}} with {{Infobox musical artist}} is policy. Point taken about the lineup - Tiswas^(t) 15:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Leeds City F.C.

I've responded to your question on the Leeds city talk page. Chappy84 16:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Battipagliese.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Battipagliese.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

York League/whitespace

Maybe it's a browser issue - what browser are you using? I'm using IE 6 and the page looks like this:

ChrisTheDude 22:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of accessibility, though, we should probably try and make it look OK in all browsers - how does it look now in yours....? ChrisTheDude 10:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CC template on Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg

Hi, I think you misunderstood my reason for changing the tag on Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg. Because the original Flickr uploader assigned a non-derivative Creative Commons license, that's the license you have to use, whether you actually make a derivative image or not. Unfortunately, images licensed on Flickr as non-derivative and/or non-commercial are not compatible for use on Wikipedia. Thanks. --Ytny (talk) 04:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg

Hello, I have deleted this image again for the reasons I outlined on Image talk:AurelioDeLaurentiis.jpg. Please do not upload it again, as its license is not compatible with Wikipedia. I realize that you didn't make any changes to the image, but we can't have that restriction on our images. If you have additional questions, please ask; do not simply upload the image again, because I will delete it again. Thanks --Spike Wilbury 22:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davey Havok

My sincerest apologies. I reverted it because I'd seen it as Marchand before it had been changed to Passaro. Sorry for the trouble I may have caused.- Floramage! 15:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we were all buddies now, but...

aww..it looks like you got bitchsmacked again, DyK. Is there anything I can do to help?—DCGeist 06:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serie D

You're doing a great mess in there. Scudetto Dilettanti was not assigned at all from 1959 to 1992, so do not add erroneus information. In fact, I had created an apposite paragraph (Serie D promotions) but you reverted my edit. And take care to the wikilinks, they are the Italian ones, that use a completely different way of styling than here. --Angelo 22:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emo (slang)

I'm glad we've established that emo is not the same as goth. If you can find a reliable source that definitely settles whether or not there is any relationship between the two, you feel free to cut out that part of the article. Reverting the entire article because of two or three statements about goth is entirely inappropriate, and you should use the talk page. I've already posted there twice in the hope that you would discuss your changes (which are, based on your reasons, inappropriate). Cheeser1 12:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tables

Hello. If you're going to make snarky comments accusing someone of "making a mess" of tables as you did on my talk page, it'd be helpful if got the right edit and the right user if you want to avoid looking like a moron. Pal 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tables

This isn't rocket science. Look at my edit, then look at yours. You didn't roll back anything I did. You rolled back part of this edit (which I'll post again even though you're apparently content to continue making yourself look dumb) which came after mine. I didn't make the offending edit! - Pal 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Do not modify my talkpage archive. I explained that such continued action would be construed as a personal attack and as vandalism. This is your only warning before I report you. Cheeser1 21:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Union 03 Altona

You redirected this page to Altonaer FC Hamburg. These are two different clubs, so please eliminate the redirect. --80.108.121.206 09:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juve PR

Hey, I've added a bunch of comments to the above. Hope some of them are helpful! The Rambling Man 18:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Please comment on articles, not other editors. If you continue to harass our editors and edit war over articles, you will be blocked in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruption. Shadow1 (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

message box

I have removed the "prank message" box from the top of your page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bots/spam

Howdy! Because of your assertion regarding bots (which don't read the messages quite yet), I'd just like to leave a quick notification about the importance of licenses. If you remove licensing alert messages from bots, it'll be accepted that you're aware of the issue they've notified you of, and if you continue to violate the copyright policies going forward, you'll be blocked to protect the project. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much aware of how to upload images correcly thanks[65][66][67][68] and even fix others that I haven't uploaded from time to time to. I just do not appreciate it when certain users/bots spam my talk with tags, that are of their own doing (ie-blanking images from articles, etc). - The Daddy 17:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its seems my humourous and within policy bar was removed by accident, not to worry I've brought it back for you. - The Daddy 18:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:UP#NOT states: "Games, roleplaying sessions, and other things pertaining to 'entertainment' rather than 'writing an encyclopedia'" are things that you should not have on your userpage. As such, I have removed the bar again. Many editors have just today mentioned that they do not like it; your persistence in keeping it amid these objections shows a decided lack of civility.

As for the "spam" notice, individuals do not set WP policy--the community does. Automated messages are perfectly acceptable within the scope of WP:SPAM and WP:CANVASS. Your refusal to acknowledge them can be construed as disruptive.

Please take a moment to consider your actions and whether or not you want to continue being willfully combative. Cheers. -- Merope 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I clearly outlined the policies that these violate. You don't get to set policy; the community does. Now knock it off. -- Merope 19:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "games", no "role-playing" or other such forms of "entertainment" mentioned in that policy which are being used on my talkpage; I'm not playing at Harry Potter. It does not say that you are not allowed to conduct yourself with a sense of humour; the box you have at the top of your talkpage has nothing to do with "writing an encyclopedia"... neither do any other peoples talkpages. So unless you are going to remove your own and every piece of information from the top of every users talkpage, then you will leave mine alone as it is not in violation of any policies.

As for my spam notice, it does not link to WP:SPAM it links to Spam (electronic); try reading the article on spam. Its non of your business whether I choose warn users against flooding my talkpage with spam or not. Warning against spam is not a violation of any known Wikipedia policy and you have been unable to show otherwise.

Also you continue to make a mess of my talkpage and screwing up my Wikiproject templates. Seriously, if you have nothing better to do than this, it might be time to turn off your computer or do something constructive. I've violated no policy, I am here trying to do some work. Now if you don't mind.... stop mythering me and defacing my personal space.- The Daddy 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently by your actions below, it seems you were just trolling me. When my block expires I will look to get your powers revoked for abuse... as shown below your block is entirely unjust. - The Daddy 19:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either it's entertainment or it's you being a jerk. Take your pick: either way, it violates policy. -- Merope 19:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its called humour and you are unable show that it violated any policy, notice how we have things such as this; Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense?.. Humour is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia, perhaps you should look into it.

Being a "prick" would be mythering users, harassing them on their talkpages when they are trying to contribute to Wikipedia by adding to articles. - The Daddy 19:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theres no need for personal attacks, it's not going to get you far considering you are already blocked for a month (pending). — Moe ε 19:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't one set of rules for you and one set for the rest, you begun the uncivilties by calling me a "jerk" (ah sorry I misread "pick" as "prick). Perhaps you should ask an other admin to block you? - The Daddy 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said either the bar constituted entertainment, which is prohibited by the userpage policy, or you're being a jerk, which is prohibited by the civility policy. You can decide which one you are: the point is that no matter how you slice it, having that up there doesn't seem to be kosher. Yeah, there's not a rule against that specific action, but that's true of a lot of things. If more than a few people objected to something on my userpage, I would remove it, no questions asked. That's part of what being a civil member of a community entails. But, whatever, we can leave it up here. You're blocked anyway. -- Merope 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Deathrocker#Enforcement_by_block_Deathrocker

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

As explained in depth below, the blocking administrator was not familiar with policies and blocked me when I was editing in good faith. He blocked me for "violating" an expired parole (I was told my the administrators at the time of parole insertion that they are in effect for a year). He has also openly displayed his intentions to abuse powers, by saying "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today".[7] basically a glorified attempt at cyber-bullying a user who is just trying to get on with some work and contribute to the project, even after I asked him to disist[8] so I can get on with some work. As the block is proven to be unjust below I request that it be lifted and preferably I be apologies to for the bullying. - The Daddy 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is valid, the accusations of "cyber bullying" aren't supported by the edit histories, and the assertion that the arbcom ruling was only to last a year is not established anywhere in the final arbcom decision. — CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since you have violated the terms of your revert parole (see: [69] [70] [71] [72]), I have blocked you from editing for one month. This block will be logged in the ArbCom listing. -- Merope 19:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration expired in May genius, it was for one year. Also removing clear examples of vandalism (I explicity stated in the diffs that is what the intentions of my edits were) does not constitute as a "revert" at all acording to the WP:3RR as already shown to you here[73]. If you are entirely incapable of administrating with an ounce of common sense or following the policies then perhaps you should give it up and let users who come here to actually CONTRIBUTE get on with it. - The Daddy 19:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say it expired in May? The revert policy does not give an expiry, and even if it was for one year, it will expire on June 25 2007. At any rate, I'll ask another administrator to examine my actions, no problem. I will say that your personal attacks aren't going to win you any sympathy. -- Merope 19:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the arbitration remedies linked above, I see no expiration. The block appears to be proper. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first went into Arbitration, I was told about the process of it and they said that the outcome lasts for a year. It states at the top "Case Opened on 20:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)", it has passed a year since I first went into it. That is the first time I'd ever been on Arbitration.

Personal attacks? You have gone out of your way to try and wind me up, while I am trying to work on articles pertaining to subjects that I am interested in... you even openly stated "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today. -- Merope 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[74]". So basically I'm having to put up with you violating WP:DICK because you're feeling "rougey" today, when I've come here to work? Think not. - The Daddy

ArbCom rulings don't start until the case closes, not when it starts. — Moe ε 20:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this is explained where? All I know is that the Arbitration case was started in May 2006 (the date shown above), its over a year later now. So that is what I'm going by.- The Daddy 20:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is just common sense. When someone is sentenced for a crime, their punishment doesn't retroactively take effect from the date of arrest. Furthermore, there is no expiration date on your edit warring parole. If you don't want to get blocked, don't edit war. End of story. -- Merope 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, it was explained to me at the very start that the parole is a year and another admin has said that this is how alot of Arbs are[75] How else would I be aware that Arbs last a year, unless I'd been told so in the first place? I've shown clearly how it has been over a year since it was opened in May 2006 and that I've edited in good faith.

Regardless of the fact that my reverts were not in violation of policy anyway, as it states in WP:3RR that removing of vandalism/blanking (which I've already explained and clearly stating that is what my edits were in the summary[76]) does not count towards a revert. So going by policy, I haven't violated anything and shouldn't be blocked at all... let alone for a month.

As I said, you made your intentions very clear with this comment; "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today". Perhaps you will regret attempting to cyber-bully me when I appeal to get your powers removed for clear abuse. - The Daddy 20:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I identify as a female. I'd appreciate your using the appropriate pronoun for me, or at the very least using he/she. -- Merope 20:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not specify a time expiry limit: even if there was a year-long limit that the arbs forgot to mention, it would still have 5 days left to run, since the case only closed on the 27th June last year.

Now, where was I? Oh yes, your ridiculous allegations of vandalism. Surely it's been explained somewhere along the line that per the rules concerning fair use, fair use galleries are not permitted? And that removing them is the thing to do? And that those that revert such removals get first warned, and then blocked? No? Well, if not, please take this on board now, because if this sort of behaviour is continued in the future, the next block will be far longer. Thank you. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 20:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is any of this specified, the case clearly states it opens in May 2006[77]. As I have said, I was told at the very start of the proccess that the parole lasts a year (if you had read the above you would already be aware of this) How else would I be aware of the fact?

Regarding your second part, may I remind you to WP:Assume good faith. The images uploaded have full rationales and fair use licenses... the images were used, like the majority on Wikipedia articles (Joy Division] for examples) next to information pertaining to them. If somebody blanks these correctly licensed and fully rationaled images from articles, then that constitutes clearly of blanking others work. Blanking is one of the main forms of vandalism[78]. - The Daddy 20:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding decision

The acusation of cyber-bullying is supported by this quote with a diff "I'm going to regret this, but I'm feeling rather rougey today"[79]. The rest of the information has been provided above with an indepth explination, referencing various policy.

Dicitionary describes as "rogue" as[80];

rogue (rg)

n.

1. An unprincipled, deceitful, and unreliable person; a scoundrel or rascal.

This is a way an admin should act towards editors who are trying to work? I think not... its simply cyber-bullying.

In your decision, you are stating points which I have explained in full below it already. You also do not reference a single policy to show how the block and the action of cyber-bullying is acceptable. Nor have you shown how any of the points illustrated above are incorrect... so what are you basing it off? - The Daddy 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merope was making a joke about being a rogue administrator, nothing more. Don't twist it to support your claims of "cyber-bullying." The block enforcement was outlined by the Arbitration Committee in their final decision, which has been stated on this page numerous times. The ArbCom decided that you will be blocked for one month if you break 1RR, so Merope enforced it. Shadow1 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

People have been recently adding O'Dean, Robin, and Greg Leon as members again. Now I agree with you that they were NEVER members. Hopefully this will be stopped soon. Alterego269 08:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I need your opinion with regards to my comment in this page. Your comments there would be greatly welcomed. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 13:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Juve article

Since 2006 Juve is playing in Stadio Olimpico di Torino (ex Comunale), not in Delle Alpi (Delle Alpi is in re-built according to Project Stadium in juventus.com). Juve will come back to Delle Alpi in the 2009-10 season according to La Stampa (lastampa.it; see its article in JFC article in it-wiki).
Respect to the Supporters chapter, the Juventus Club DOC site (juventusclubdoc.it) is the only official fan club recognized by Juventus Football Club S.p.A. The chapter explains the JFC fan clubs around the world and Juventus Club DOC have this information. Zebraportal, Juve Malasia, Juve Indonesia, Juventuz, JFC by Danilo Paparazzo, yahoo, geocities, and others ARE NOT recognized by JFC. Sorry for my poor English. --Dantetheperuvian 21:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

Why the personal insults? That helps nobody. Dvb23 12:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Juventus FC

I saw that you reverted out my edits to the Calciopoli section of the article. I have since edited the section and sourced it to the best of my abilities, as I did not like the previous version (as it sounded like an anti-Inter editorial (when Juve was upset at more than just Inter) and missed other, notable events like Juventus' challenge to the civil courts). I would like to, therefore, bring up the following points to consider before you re-edit:
1. If there *is* a specific complaint by Juventus (or its fanbase) against Inter Milan it should be documented somewhere in reliable news sources.
2. Much of the anti-Inter material isn't Juventus-specific and is better covered in the Calciopoli article itself.
3. The Goal.com article you provided is a reader-submitted article and is no more reliable than a letter published to a major newspaper. In addition to this, much of the allegations provided in the article- such as Telecom Italia's moves being illegal- should be documented in other, "bigger" sources such as the Guardian, ESPN (or even Italian law), as it is a major allegation.

Thanks. -RomeW 09:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, I found the Channel 4 artile on Gigli, which should be included in the main article, although I have yet to find a source where a Juve official specifically alleges that Inter conspired against them (the Gigli article states that Juventus should beat Inter because Inter took their scudetto- nothing about a conspiracy to take it from them).

In any case, there does not *need* to be a whole paragraph dedicated to Inter's wrongdoings- that stuff is already covered in the Calciopoli article, and this is an article on Juventus, not Inter. There does need to be information on Juventus' attempt to bring the matter to the civil courts (due to a perceived bias against them in relation to not just Inter, but Milan, Fiorentina, Lazio (who all got their demotions revoked, with Milan even allowed back in the Champions League) and Messina (who won the right to stay in Serie A at Juventus' expense)), because that *is* notable- it almost led FIFA to ban the FIGC; as well as "Calciopoli II" that brought more controversy when Milan sued for the 2005 Scudetto after it was learned that a 0-0 draw in late 2004 was suspicious. The way the article is written, it appears that all the events that happened after the trial were about Inter and that isn't the truth- quite a lot happened between Juventus and the other clubs. I also think if the article is going to mention that Inter bought two Juve players, those players should be named, especially considering they were key Juve players.

Lastly, again, the Goal.com article is *not* a source- it's a reader-submitted article that is not "endorsed" by the site and has no more value than if I had submitted an article to Goal.com. All the information in the article *should* be sourced by more reputable sources. Regardless, given what I said before, I don't even know if it needs to be in the article, because the Calciopoli aftermath should deal with a lot more than just Inter, because that's what happened.-RomeW 19:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Juventus F.C.

Hi Daddy Kindsoul. You are off to such a great start on the article History of Juventus F.C. that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 1 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article history of Juventus F.C., which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Puteolana2004.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Puteolana2004.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 01:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Juve players

Not exist a standart for football teams list. The List of Juve standart is the same than List of Liverpool and List of Manchester United list, BOTH FEATURED LISTS. The list have more OUTSTANTING Juve players than your edits.

If exist

why write

???

What's your problem now? It's not wikipedia for dummies! --Dantetheperuvian 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy?

If you like, i remove the REAL Platini's quote for the list, but you don't edit ALL why the list of players (and source) of my edition is most complete than the other and have the same standart than MU and Liverpool FEATURED lists! --Dantetheperuvian 02:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walty was part of first scudetto of Juve (1905). Domenico Donna was the first Juve captain (see juventusstory.it). Alejnikov has won 1990 UEFA Cup and has been important for that. Platt, not.

Zona Cesarini and "oriundi" are important Italian football phrases. I, in my poor English, explain this.- --Dantetheperuvian 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy the numbers for recognize players were used for make diference between Players with the same surname (Borel I is Aldo Giuseppe, Borel II is Felice Placido). It's important because in England Borel is so known as Borel II.
If you would like edit (I or II), make it, but please DON'T EDIT all the list! --Dantetheperuvian 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Walty was important as "pioneer player" as Durante, Barberis, Donna and other in 1900s and the First Scudetto in 1905 (more info in Juve article in it-wiki). Alejnikov was important for Juve in 1990 Uefa Cup triumph (this Cup was dedicated in memory of Gai Scirea). From the Juve official site (in Italian): http://www.juventus.com/it/news/detail.aspx?lml_language_id=0&trs_id=1203000&ID=10758

Players as Platt, Henry, Zavarov, Rush, Vycpalek (he has played only two matches in Juve squad. He's most recognized as Juve coach) and others have not important performance in Juve. --Dantetheperuvian 02:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation templates

Hello, did you read Wp:cite#Citation_templates?

Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers.

Please don't do that again. Cheers, Chris.B 09:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Puteolana 1902

Hi Daddy Kindsoul. You are off to such a great start on the article F.C. Puteolana 1902 that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. The Main Page gets about 4,000,000 hits per day and appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Also, don't forget to keep checking back at Did you know suggestions for comments regarding your nomination. Again, great job on the article. -- JayHenry 05:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D Generation

Why have you reverted D Generation? Your change seems to do nothing more than revert the article to an older, out-of-date version. Adam McMaster 08:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop reverting to the version of this article you seem to like best. You should not wikilink individual years, you should not Over-Capitalise external links, there is no need to add a default sort parameter to the categories, you should not introduce typos to the article. If you disagree with specific POV sentences in the article, either tag them with [citation needed], comment them out or delete them altogether, but do not perform wholesale reversions on the article. Thanks. The Rambling Man 08:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to blatantly edit in contravention of the manual of style I will have to block you from editing. Please stop, you have been warned. The Rambling Man 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, last warning. You tell me to "Stop acting like a nutcase " - your edits introduce typos, bad style and point-of-view. It's not your article so stop claiming ownership. Once more and I will block you. The Rambling Man 09:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you chill. It'd be a real shame to march into a block. Usual advice round here is WP:TEA - it's pretty sound advice. It's easy to get heated, especially when one feels alone in an argument. --Dweller 09:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having scanned Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker, may I gently redouble my last advice. If you get into new blocking trouble, you could find yourself subject to very lengthy sanctions. --Dweller 09:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, nor would I seek to ignore policies nor harass anyone, however your behaviour here is disturbing - you deliberately introduce typos into an article and claim to be following the WP:MOS? You deliberately add POV (e.g. "...very popular...") and yet claim to be following WP:NPOV? Bizarre. Anyway, as Dweller says, you need to take it easy otherwise sanctions will be tough. The Rambling Man 09:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Torinese

Do you have proofs that the club was called F.B.C. Torinese? I've always seen it written as F.C. Torinese. Anyway, if the club was called like that, the article should be moved to F.B.C. Torinese, like in F.B.C. Derthona. CapPixel 08:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really... the standard in the early days was C.F.C. (cricket and football club), because most of the clubs were founded by Englishmen. On authorized almanacs like Almanacco Panini the club is called "F.C. Torinese" and also in the official Torino F.C. history page. CapPixel 11:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I meant if you had found it on official sources like FIGC homepage or Torino F.C.'s one. CapPixel

Eccellenza Sicily

They weren't played at all, that's what the Regional Committee decided later on. Pro Favara was apparently readmitted to Eccellenza, but I'm not sure about this, try to have a look at the Committee's official site for some information concerning the issue. --Angelo 20:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

I appreciate the revert you did for me on the "Joseph McCarthy" page. It was nice getting some back-up from someone on the McCarthy article. Thank you. Best regards. Jtpaladin 19:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism warning

Hey, I know we've had our disputes but giving User:DCGeist a level four warning is pretty extreme. I know his edits were a bit bizarre, more annoying than vandalism, but not really in need of a level 4 warning. Anyway, I hope that you're okay about the situation, I've advised DCGeist to chill out a bit and get worked up about either one barnstar or more than one barnstars... wow. Regards, The Rambling Man 21:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think the answer here is to just try to chat the situation out with DCGeist and see where to go from there. Issuing a level 4 warning is one step away from asking an admin to block which doesn't seem appropriate here. As far as I can see, DCGeist isn't a vandal, and while he's edited some of your pages, I'd just try to take it in good stead. As you say on your user page, "if something is wrong, Daddy Kindsoul believes it should be removed without pussyfooting around." - so alerting users that have messages when they don't seems to fall into that category. To that end, I know this may seem extreme but can I ask you to remove the "You have new messages" banner? It's annoying (even to me) and some people find it very disruptive. All the best, The Rambling Man 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STALK

Li'l DyKy, given your concern with Wikistalking, allow me to point out these three edits to you, which constitute exactly that: [81], [82], [83]. As the record clearly demonstrates, you have absolutely no interest in either perfect game or Joseph McCarthy, other than my participation in them. And, of course, your edit in the second of those summaries--"per concensus"--is not only misspelled, it's an obvious lie.

So, as Rambling Man suggests, let's try to get some positivity here. Obviously, we have to begin with you apologizing for instigating the negativity with your stalking and that deceptive edit summary. I'm all ears...—DCGeist 21:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for Joining the Maltese WikiProject

Dear Daddy Kindsoul/Archive 1,

I would like to thank you for joining WikiProject Malta, a collaborative effort that aims to improve, write, expand and organise material related to the island nation of Malta. We currently need as many members as we can get, and you are a valued addition to the list of members. Please see our To-Do list if you would like to further contribute to the project, or help construct our project page.

Thank you,

The WikiProject Malta Team -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing sources

Continuing this will lead to a block.Hoponpop69 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of warning and sources

I noticed you deleted my last warning to stop deleting sources[84], and then I noticed you went on to delete the same source.[85] If there is a problem with the source please say why instead of deleting it without giving a reason.

As for deleting warnings on your talk page, that should not be done.Hoponpop69 20:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOFX

Per the report at WP:ANI, rather than get into an edit-war with another editor and then compound it by leaving uncivil notes on his talk-page, can I suggest you both discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page? Thanks. ELIMINATORJR 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started this discussion here[86].Hoponpop69 22:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rock

Hey man do you reckon you could bring on the edit conflict you're having with geist into the discussion board? It's just because it's looking really messy on the history page and looks like it's just gonna go back and forth without any resolution. (I agree with most of your reverts although the honored/honoured thing is a little touchy and I don't see why the Saints section had to be cropped). (Justinboden86 15:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Kit body Palermo1.png. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Kit body Palermo1.PNG. The copy called Image:Kit body Palermo1.PNG has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 14:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Daddy Kindsoul (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

The arbcom remedy regarding you has no expiry time. MaxSem 09:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blocked: One week for edit warring on NOFX and violating your revert parole. Thatcher131 02:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My parole was for a year and the year had ended in 27 July 2007. I haven't broken any revert paroles, besides if you view the edit summary, I reverted vandalism of the opening paragraph of the article; a vandal blanked the entire first paragraph along with the four sources. Removing blanking does not count as a revert by the policy.

How is it that the user personally attacks me in the edit summary, yet he only gets a 24 hour block, while I get a week? The user is renouned for the vandalism that I removed.[87] With this sort of recklessness you're sending a message that if a user removed a defacing edit, then they can be blocked for helping Wikipedia, which isn't such a good idea.... - The Daddy 09:19, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time of going into Arbcom, well over a year a go, I was told by the admin that it was for one year. - The Daddy 09:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no time limit on the written decision as posted. You can ask for clarification by emailing an Arbitrator or by posting to the Requests for clarification section of WP:RFAR. Blocks for incivility are controversial; between Hoponpop's insult and general edit warring I felt a 24 hour block was warranted; further would require more evidence of long term disruption. In your case, this is the seventh block enforcing the Arbitration case. Thatcher131 12:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Request for Unblock, after admin violation of Wikipedia policies

Unblock

Request for Arbitration

RFC deleted

Archive talkpage

Unprotected

Ley

Another Arbcom case.

Block

?

Re: Assistance Please

Mmmm

It Aint Happening

Image Tagging for Image:30meegs.jpg

Image Tagging Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg

Message from Spammer

Image Tagging for Image:ManaSoloPromo.jpg

Dimitri Spanoa

Urban art movement/Spamoa

Blah

Image copyright problem with Image:PromoEva.jpg

Re: Hmm

Motörhead

Warning about edit summaries

Reguarding your edits to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker/Evidence

Import from User talk:Kevin Breitenstein

Threat by Leyasu using an anon

Warring

Feel free to leave me a new Message!

Re: Workshop page on the RfAr

of interest to you...perhaps?

Spam message from Bot: Your edit to S.S.C. Napoli

Image copyright problem with Image:Mallgoth.jpg

Request for unblock

block

Unspecified source for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Image tagging for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Re: Reply

Removal of RFD Tags

Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg listed for deletion

Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

License tagging for Image:RicardoGardner.jpg

Fair use rationale for Image:Butt.JPG

Image tagging for Image:FDQStudio14.jpg

Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

NOFX introduction

Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

pop punk intro sentence

Unblocked

Archiving

Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

Impersonation

Complaint filed at WP:AE

Concerning pop punk [citation needed] tag

MCR- Not Goth?

Sockpuppet

Wayne Hall

NOFX

Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg

A7X

#9 on WP:FUC

Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg listed for deletion

License tagging for Image:CreepsPromo2006.gif

Aiden...

A7X Page

Please reply!

Message from a vandal

Aiden

Blocked

Replyed

Warning

Talk pages

Talk pages tag

Wikiproject:Italian Football

Thanks

Tags on talk pages

48 hour block

Potential bad faith

Concerning pop punk ^{[citation needed]} tag