User talk:Grind History

May 2021

Hey again, I'm very sorry I reverted your edits to grindcore once again, but the problem with most of this edit, is that the sources you cite have to reflect the information you're including and the information has to be notable to the page. For example, obviously Napalm Death are a highly notable band in grindcore, but going into detail about each of their songs and how they were influenced, isn't important to understand grindcore. It may be important to understand those specific songs, but not the genre as a whole. Feel free to add that info to the song or album page though. Also, you citing sources that say that grind was influenced by crust and thrashcore does not equate to it being a fusion genre of the two. Especially seeing as both those genres were already listed as influencing it prior to your edits. I hope this clears some stuff up. I'm willing to help you further understand the runnings of Wikipedia if you'd like, as I understand it can be hard to follow. You can alternatively leave something on the article's talk page and I'm sure other editors would be willing to help you. I'm sorry, I don't want to get into any kind of conflict. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 02:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Grindcore 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Motörhead genre

You changed the main Motörhead genre to biker metal, which I reverted for three reasons.

First is that infobox genres should remain as generic as possible, as described at Template:Infobox musical artist#genre.

Second is that genres on Wikipedia are derived from WP:SECONDARY sources, not from personal observations by Wikipedia editors, or even by band members. Whatever Lemmy said is not going to change the band's listed genre.

Third is that Wikipedia is a summary of the literature about a topic. The literature on Motörhead includes a lot of sources that do not mention biker metal. Sure, you can find biker metal if you are looking for it, but if you are looking at everything written about the band, biker metal comes in a distant fifth or sixth place. The instructions at Template:Infobox musical artist#genre tell us that four genres are the maximum. We already have four genres listed. Binksternet (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Atavistic (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Atavistic (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atavistic (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Binksternet (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Hazzard Dblon per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hazzard Dblon. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 12 May 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

the complaint of these 2 guys (Issan Sumisu and Binksternet) that they made to my account for "sockpuppet" is false because the Hazzard Dblon account I am not using since February. However this account of "Grind History" I am using it with the motive of adding information to the page Grindcore which was adding information with quotes from books with their respective ISBN, interviews of the creators and defending the quote of "allmusic" that says that grindcore comes from Napalm Death, however those who probably denounced my account were Issan Sumisu and Binksternet these 2 subjects revert my edition without having any reason. Issan Sumisu is the one who modifies at his whim without considering my bibliographic citations that contribute to the past of Grindcore history. I consider that I am contributing to the Grindcore article objectively by having the backing of the bibliographic citations. I hope for your understanding and if you can unblock me please support me in my grindcore issue, check my contributions, that Issan Sumisu and Binksternet are reversing it without any sense. ISSAN SUMISU has actually deleted my contribution without any explanation. Regarding my Atavistic (Band) page creation it was deleted even though I put a story about it and a bibliographic quote, explaining that the place of creation of the band was in UK (Whitstable, Kent) but Binksternet reported it for lack of information but did not do the same with Isan Sumissu by adding a quote about the magazine "Kerrang" which wikipedia marks it as lacking information. These 2 guys are vandalizing a page without considering the story I want to tell since 1985.

"Sockpuppet" is when one engages in vandalism from different accounts AT THE SAME TIME. Which I did not do because I have been using the "Grind History" account since April, however the Hazzard Dblon account I have not used since February.

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that attack other editors are not considered. This is textbook abusive sockpuppetry. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 14 May 2021 (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.

I have quoted from "Grind History" with respective authors reinforcing the information from "allmusic". I did not make any quotes from Hazzard Dblon not to confuse things.

Hey I just saw that I got tagged in this, and wanted to say that I had nothing to do with your block. It was done by one of the CheckUsers, not me. Issan Sumisu (talk) 06:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage access is revoked, since the page is being used as a forum to continue disruptive attacks on other editors. If you want to be unblocked, use your original account and formulate an unblock request that addresses your conduct and use of sockpuppets, and isn't devoted to your grievances. Acroterion (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]