User talk:Drytalkplease98
December 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Heavy metal music shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Drytalkplease98 reported by User:Moxy (Result: ). Thank you. Moxy 🍁 15:34, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- You literally left a whole book of sources attempting to back me up to that one editor, just one, and he dismissed it as “vague”. What on earth?! Is there some sort of customer service/way to complain to Wikipedia administrators, because you simply can’t edit anything on here, no matter how simple, without being harassed, expected to jump through endless hoops, and ultimately ignored and blocked anyways. I’ll be honest, it’s fucking infuriating, and I want to make sure it changes in some way. This is not an academic, scientific page, it’s a “country of origin” label for a genre that has 1) all its stylistic origin’s roots in the US and 2) has an endless number of quite early influences on the genre, as literally explained and sourced in its own goddamn history page. Explain to me how adding “the United States” to country of origins in this case needs such an onerous process, and why it’s so controversial, when the page already gives us that information, yet fails to clarify it in the “country of origin” section? Drytalkplease98 (talk) 00:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Please stop changing Heavy metal music
[edit]The content that you are removing has been there for some years. If you want to change things on the article, and others disagree, then you do not keep editing the article until you get what you want. You do not remove long-standing content until you agree to have it there. You get consensus first before doing anything.
I strongly advise you to revert your latest edit. You will achieve nothing if you are blocked from editing. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
- I have huge issues with Wikipedia and the editing process here. It should not be this complicated and laborious to change it, and that information has, according to the page’s history, repeatedly changed. It shouldn’t matter how long it’s been there, it’s been there for so long because you have biased editors who gatekeep, twist, and manipulate the information they allow, and that has always been a huge problem with Wikipedia. 1) The talk pages are never used to affect. It takes hours upon hours or even days to get a response. 2) No amount of sources, compromises, and arguments will sway the one editor, who’s at liberty to revert and block ad infinitum. 3) No number of agreements swayed the editor, in this case. I had a few people agree with me on the talk page, another user cited an entire book for the argument, and I cited around 20 SOURCES that were already on that page, that EXTENSIVELY mentions and explains the American influence on the genre in its “History” section, and that ONE person, Serge, STILL never let it through. NOTHING was good enough. 4) The editors here engage in editing practices that they apparently condemn. 5) They request sources and have you jump through hoops to make any simple edit, many of which are already more than justified by the information and sources on the page. 6) And of course, if you get exasperated at their bias, lies, domineering wielding of the “edit-war” claim, refusal to see any sources, hear arguments, or compromise at all, and you make any repeated edit with a simple explanation, they block you. And your entire IP. Please hear my complaints. This is ridiculous, censorious, and biased, and it’s really no wonder Wikipedia is warned against as an adequate source. Because of people like Serge, and people like you. There should not be 500,000,000 rules and stipulations regarding exactly how to make such a simple edit. Come. On. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Dude. Seriously. You wanted to change something and SEVEN PEOPLE REVERTED YOU BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED WITH YOU. In other words, your "simple edit" was considered to be seriously wrong. Only ONE of these editors was someone called "Serge", by the way, so this stuff about "gatekeeping" is just hogwash. Now, what you could have done was to continue on the talk page and maybe find consensus, but you just had to go and make your little edit again. That is not how we work, and unless you start playing by the rules, you will be blocked indefinitely.
- Seven people didn’t revert it because they “disagreed” with me, the only claim cited was that I wasn’t engaging in proper conduct. You need to explain to me how adding the US to the country of origin page is “seriously wrong”. What’s an absurd, melodramatic claim that’s totally at odds with the facts PRESENTED ON THAT PAGE. And here you are, proving my point again. It’s obviously on me to prove my point, but my point was already proven by THE INFORMATION AND SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE. You cant disagree on something that’s objective. It isn’t an “opinion” that the US had massive influence on the genre, IT DID. As much as the UK. I had three people agree with me, I followed the rules, I heavily cited 20 sources that explicitly backed up what I said, and was blocked. My edit is 100% correct and 100% justified. Stop it with this.
- Seven editors reverted you. That's probably a record in terms of edit warring. I don't need to explain how your edit was wrong; it is enough for me that seven editors thought it was wrong. Hint: look up what "collaborative editing" means. No, there are not three editors who agree with your point of view; there is maybe one editor who thinks that you are not entirely wrong and may be partly right, but that's hardly the same. So no, you did not follow the rules, nor do I have to "stop" with anything; I'm not doing anything, actually. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Don’t blame me for this mess. You were warned multiple times to stop reverting, and you didn’t. That’s on you. When you make a change and people oppose it, you need to stop until there is WP:CONSENSUS on what to do. It’s not “complicated” at all, it’s a very simple concept. We can’t have everyone going around reverting non-stop all the time or articles would be in a constant state of flux. You just need to learn to slow down and talk things out. Sergecross73 msg me 00:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
- Seven people didn’t revert it because they “disagreed” with me, the only claim cited was that I wasn’t engaging in proper conduct. You need to explain to me how adding the US to the country of origin page is “seriously wrong”. What’s an absurd, melodramatic claim that’s totally at odds with the facts PRESENTED ON THAT PAGE. And here you are, proving my point again. It’s obviously on me to prove my point, but my point was already proven by THE INFORMATION AND SOURCES IN THE ARTICLE. You cant disagree on something that’s objective. It isn’t an “opinion” that the US had massive influence on the genre, IT DID. As much as the UK. I had three people agree with me, I followed the rules, I heavily cited 20 sources that explicitly backed up what I said, and was blocked. My edit is 100% correct and 100% justified. Stop it with this.
- Dude. Seriously. You wanted to change something and SEVEN PEOPLE REVERTED YOU BECAUSE THEY DISAGREED WITH YOU. In other words, your "simple edit" was considered to be seriously wrong. Only ONE of these editors was someone called "Serge", by the way, so this stuff about "gatekeeping" is just hogwash. Now, what you could have done was to continue on the talk page and maybe find consensus, but you just had to go and make your little edit again. That is not how we work, and unless you start playing by the rules, you will be blocked indefinitely.
- I have huge issues with Wikipedia and the editing process here. It should not be this complicated and laborious to change it, and that information has, according to the page’s history, repeatedly changed. It shouldn’t matter how long it’s been there, it’s been there for so long because you have biased editors who gatekeep, twist, and manipulate the information they allow, and that has always been a huge problem with Wikipedia. 1) The talk pages are never used to affect. It takes hours upon hours or even days to get a response. 2) No amount of sources, compromises, and arguments will sway the one editor, who’s at liberty to revert and block ad infinitum. 3) No number of agreements swayed the editor, in this case. I had a few people agree with me on the talk page, another user cited an entire book for the argument, and I cited around 20 SOURCES that were already on that page, that EXTENSIVELY mentions and explains the American influence on the genre in its “History” section, and that ONE person, Serge, STILL never let it through. NOTHING was good enough. 4) The editors here engage in editing practices that they apparently condemn. 5) They request sources and have you jump through hoops to make any simple edit, many of which are already more than justified by the information and sources on the page. 6) And of course, if you get exasperated at their bias, lies, domineering wielding of the “edit-war” claim, refusal to see any sources, hear arguments, or compromise at all, and you make any repeated edit with a simple explanation, they block you. And your entire IP. Please hear my complaints. This is ridiculous, censorious, and biased, and it’s really no wonder Wikipedia is warned against as an adequate source. Because of people like Serge, and people like you. There should not be 500,000,000 rules and stipulations regarding exactly how to make such a simple edit. Come. On. Drytalkplease98 (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
- Just to address a few points;
- 1 - Yes, it takes time sometimes to reach consensus. Welcome to Wikipedia. It's frustrating sometimes, but it ensures that things don't get slapped on a page because one person insists they are right, and everyone else is wrong.
- 2 - Even if you think you are 100% right, when you are changing things and others disagree, you must discuss. Again, welcome to Wikipedia. If you can't handle this then maybe editing here isn't for you.
- 3 - You were warned multiple times that you were going about things the wrong way, and would get blocked. You ignored those warning. Sorry, it's on your head.
- 4 - I don't think it's argued that American bands didn't play a role in early Heavy metal, but the question is where did it originate? You might have a point. I don't know. But until you learn to follow the rules, you'll not convince anyone. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:26, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Carl Tristan Orense. I noticed that you recently removed content from Smoking age without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Carl Tristan Orense 00:32, 28 December 2019 (UTC)