User talk:Hoponpop69/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Your Edit to Green Day

"it says right there in the source that it sold 15 million" you say in your last edit. Why didn't you just say that in the edit summary at first? You have a history of vandalism warnings and if you don't properly comment your edits, things like reverts on this are bound to happen. If you carefully explain your edits, i doubt it will happen much again TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Devilock2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Devilock2.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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. 01:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Uncle Tom

Please read and contribute to Talk:Uncle Tom#People accused of being an Uncle Tom and stop adding that list after it has been reverted ... having such a list violates WP:BLP, which mandates "Remove unsourced or poorly sourced controversial material", and if you add it again, I will get an administrator involved ... it is your responsibility to justify the inclusion of such a list in violation of Official Wikipedia Policy. --72.75.85.159 03:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Clay Aiken

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Clay Aiken. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. - Maria202 23:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: your comment on User talk:69.148.94.220

All right, thanks for the clarification. I frankly don't know much about the history of modern music, so I should stay away from those articles, and factual verification thereof... well, hopefully this IP actually gets an account and starts making good edits. I did have a problem with you saying "bad things will come your way"; this could be interpreted as a threat. (A certain editor had been accused of making threats when he said that he was going to use Occam's razor, but this is a bit more troubling.) I would suggest linking to or explicitly citing WP:BLOCK, not because he won't know what it means, but because I (looking at the page) wouldn't know. Thanks. Gracenotes^T § 06:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Acro-brats

A tag has been placed on The Acro-brats, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (below the existing db tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Static Universe ^{talk|contribs} 07:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tvcity.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tvcity.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Please quit reversing the Gavin Newsom heading. Your editing is awkward and not descriptive. Thanks you. 71.139.27.85 04:01, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No reason given for deletion of the SFWeekly/ Peter Byrne external link, which expands upon the Getty-Newsom connection mentioned in the SF Chronicle article. I've put it back. Elricky 08:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Allstuff2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Allstuff2.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 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 09:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

blink-182 Pop Punk vs Punk Rock vote

As you have recently contributed to the blink-182 article you might be interested in casting your vote towards reaching a final consensus on the bands genre, Pop Punk or Punk Rock, votes can be cast here. cheers mate --Dan027 07:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Message on User Page

Hi there - I noticed that you inadvertantly left a message on the userpage of User:D tonack instead of on his talk page. He's less likely to see it where it's at. I'd move it myself, but Hagermanbot might want to slap my signature on it, so I thought I'd leave it up to you if that's ok. Cheers, Figma 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The Who

"Possibly the greatest live band ever" is a direct quote from the cited source. In order to avoid POV, I cited it that way on purpose. Ckessler 19:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a quote from Rolling Stone, an acceptable source. This is a compromise, and is better than having unsourced, obviously POV statements in an article. Ckessler 19:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

blanking cited facts

Hello Hoponpop69. Please refer to the discussion board as to why the false citations were removed. Olir 16:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I decided to leave the sources in, despite your failure to read the discussion board or the edit summaries. So nevermind. However I did add sources for punk rock and alt rock of which you comically said there were citations needed for, when there were so many already listed on the discussion page. Olir 17:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility

I just noticed your remark at User talk:Olir. Try to remain civil please. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

pull your head it, theres no need to make comments like that at another user, it could result in you getting blocked also. --Dan027 06:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Blanking cited facts.

Please do not blank cited facts on the Blink-182 page. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I assume you must not have watched them all the way through, for example they talk at the end after the song. Also you deleted a source refering to the song apple shampoo, this song is also a valid source. If you do not know much about Blink-182 I understand why you thought you should delete it. Also please do not leave messages on my talk page as if you are trying to score points on a personal level against me, its very unprofessional. I, on the other hand am only interested in the articles. Olir 09:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also you should look at the notes I have left beside the links. Giving you the benefit of the doubt I assume you missed them. This should help you incase you make the same mistake again Olir 10:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD

Hi, could I request that you very quickly scan through the WP:PROD policy just to check that you understand the basics. Essentially, according to WP:PROD#Conflicts, when someone removes a prod notice, you shouldn't revert. Thanks, Addhoc 18:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I see someone beat me to that. As Addhoc said, any removal of the PROD template is considered someone contesting the deletion, which means it can't be PRODed. The Right Thing (tm) to do is put the article up for deletion, which I've done for you: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emo_violence. -FunnyMan 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) (well, a few mins earlier than that, actually, I'm just an idiot)

blink 182

I've protected the page until you and Olir (along with all the other editors with an interest in the article) can agree on the necessary wording, and as an aside, your really sailing close to the wind for being blocked for grossly incivil conduct and revert/edit warring. -- Nick ^t 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian Summer (band)

Please leave an edit summary in the future, especially when making a major change such as adding a speedy deletion template. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

You're still doing it

Edit summaries are very important. See your edits here. This is especially true when introducing momentous changes. Please start leaving edit summaries. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please sign talk pages

See your recent edit to Talk:Dead To Me. On talk pages, you should be signing every edit you make with four tildes (like ~~~~). Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Greetings, I'm writing to you to let you know that I generally agree with your push to have a mention of the Laugh Factory incident mentioned in the lead of the article. I invite you to join discussion about this. Cheers. (→Netscott) 21:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I reverted you. That language will never fly in the lead. I've kept the lead wording toned in accord with WP:NPOV. (→Netscott) 23:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do actually tend to agree with your edits but after having worked on the article since the day the story broke about the cell phone video I know that such language is not seen as neutral by a consensus of editors. (→Netscott) 23:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

You know if you'd just change the word "racist" backed to "racial" there'll likely be much less resistance to that sentence being in the lead. I'm not sure if you are aware of it but if you haven't already done so then I invite you to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Also it is best to use article talk pages to discuss edits like this. (→Netscott) 00:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I strongly suggest you self-revert right now because you'll be shortly prevented from further editing due to WP:3RR vio. (which given the validity of your edits would suck). (→Netscott) 02:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Simple Plan

I'm not sure if you were trying to vandalize the Simple Plan article, but please don't be reckless with your editing. That is all. — Ian Lee (Talk|contribs) 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- No Guru 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Re. this edit summary, please note that good faith editing is not vandalism, even if you think it's bad editing. Leaving provocative messages is not the way to achieve resolution. Tyrenius 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours

You have been blocked for violating the 3RR on Michael Richards. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Pee-wee Herman

Wikipedia:Lead section states:

"The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context...and briefly describing its notable controversies"

That is why I am adding that part. The lead in this article also needs more info on his general career which I will add later today. I am just trying to improve this articles lead section.Hoponpop69 23:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

indeed...i just don't agree with your assessment of the notability of the incident in giving it an entire paragraph that--pardon my frankness--is not very well written. --emerson7 | Talk 00:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

honestly, dude, i'm just trying to help you out here, but i'm giving it less than 24 hours before someone wipes out your edits. i think you are reading waaay more into the mos than what's there. i admire, and honour your efforts, but i just think your submissions do not add to the integrity of the article. …i'm just sayin'… --emerson7 | Talk 01:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Civility in edit summaries

This edit summary is inappropriate. Please remain calm and civil in your editing. Thanks, Gwernol 01:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact "due" is not a word you would use to describe charges for an impeachment. He was charged with the crimes of..... Second, your statement is POV, because it is not necessary to describe why he was impeached in that section, because it will be described later in the article. I will overlook your edit warring and incivility.Orangemarlin 04:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Indian Summer (band)

You have added an {{AfD}} tag to the Indian Summer (band) article, but failed to complete the second and third steps of the AfD nomination. I have removed the AfD tag for the moment. Feel free to replace it when you have time to complete the full nomination. Thanks, Gwernol 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Further personal attack warning

With regards to your comments on Talk:Blink-182: 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 will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Gwernol 09:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Attempted AfD for Indian Summer

Here is the article as you left it. If you read The AfD instructions you'll see the only thing you'd done was step I adding the {{afd1}} tag to the article. You hadn't done steps II and III. The reason I didn't complete them for you is:

1. I'm not going to do the work for you.
2. I have no idea what the reason you wanted to give for the deletion was. You should have given that reason in the second step.

Thanks, Gwernol 20:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael Richards Vietnam

Regarding this edit, please don't just change text without any explanation. If you wish to change this text, then discuss at Talk:Michael_Richards#Vietnam_veteran. It is recommended to leave edit summaries. Tyrenius 00:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Warped Tour 2007

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Hoponpop69! 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 �purevolume\.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 01:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Please Be Aware

You have recently posted a message on the page of user 68.88.76.165. Please be aware that the IP Address in question is generic, assigned randomly to users within the SBC DSL Internet system.

March 2007

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 20:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Warped Tour 2007

The page has been fixed. Edit away...GDon4t0 (talk to me...) 13:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.Hoponpop69 16:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

April 2007

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Michael Richards, you will be blocked from editing. Bulbous 23:24, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The edit you made here is a blatant violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Please put your point of view without speaking in that way or you'll be blocked from editing. If things are getting frustrating, then go off and do something else to get matters into perspective. Tyrenius 02:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I came here to say the same really. I removed part of your post. Calling people morons etc is simply not allowed here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BLP issue with Ben Weasel

Ben Weasel has written us to object to several elements of the Wikipedia article about him. He has asserted that they are factually incorrect, and because they are wholly unsourced, I have thus removed them. Please do not insert any contentious information into biographies of living persons unless you can provide impeccable sources to cite. Thank you. FCYTravis 15:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Green Day WikiProject

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

Regarding presidential "Exploratory Committees"

You're invited to comment at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 navigation, on this proposal:

Proposed Deletion of category "Exploratory" and "Declared" for individuals filing with FEC.

And please note this argument on the same talk page. Exploratory equals Candidate.

Best regards, -- Yellowdesk 13:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Awaken

Hi, thanks for contributing to Awaken's page, but I'm afraid the deletion is not appropriate yet. Anyway, please inform me what should be cited and I'll do my best to repair it. Thank you for your understanding. I changed a little and hope it works now. Can you tell me more if needed ? Anyway, the deletion is not yet appropriate in my opinion. Meoneko

AWAKEN once again

I added references and a collaboration with someone you can call famous. Please have a look and reconsider your judgement. Thanks.

PAPA ROACH

Papa Roach make Post-hardcore since Getting Away With Murder,so please don't change itAFI-PUNK

Vandalism

Sorry, I made a mistake. My bad. Please accept my apologies. mattbuck 16:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

PAPA ROACH THE SECOND

PLEASE CHANGE NOTHING FROM PAPA ROACH!! EVERYTHING WAS FINE BUT THAN YOU CAME AND CHANGED EVERYTHING!! PLEASE LET IT BE!! AFI-PUNK

´

Papa Roach the third

I donÄt think that GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IS A HARD ROCK ALBUM!! HARD ROCK SOUNDS MORE CLASSIC LIKE AC/DC OR AROWSMITH OR GUNS AND ROSES!! BUT NOT PAPA ROACH!! THEY HAVE A LOT OF POST-HARDCORE AND POP-PUNK OR NEO-PUNK OR JUST PUNKROCK INFLUENCES!PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE IT THANKS!!AND NO HARD ROCK BAND SCREAMS ON THEIR RECORDS!! AFI-PUNK

PAPA ROACH THE FOURTH

PAPA ROACH ARE MORE POST-GRUNGE THAN HARD ROCK AND ALTERNATIVE METAL!! NO HARD ROCK BAND SCREAMS ON THEIR SONGS!! THEY HAVE HARDCORE INFLUENCE BECAUSE THE SCREAMING COMES FROM HARDCORE-PUNK AND THEY ARE VERY EXPERIMENTAL!!! AND POST-HARDCORE HAS GOT THEIR INFLUENCES FROM HARDCORE-PUNK/POST-PUNK/HEAVY METAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC!!! SO STOP TO CHANGE THE GENRES!!!! EVERYTHING WAS OK BUT THAN YOU CAME!!! SO STOP IT!!! AFI-PUNK

Excuse me

I regret to inform you that Anberlin is not a Christian band. Stephen Christian himself said he does not want Anberlin to be labled as a christian band, because they are not. Thank you Pbroks13 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Reliable Sources? Yes, according to Christian websites, they are a Christian band, but according to many other unbiast sources, they are not. ie iTunes, Anberlin themselves, Billboard, ect. Oh and I have only reverted two times. According to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule a user must revert it three times. If you revert it once more, you will have broken the Three-revert rule. Pbroks13 04:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Going on Wikibreak, Stern Show edits

I'm going on a self-imposed wikibreak. I saw your edit of the Eric the Midget where you changed the wording from obsession to fandom, that is better but I still think there may be a more appropriate word for describing his thing for American idol. I also saw the change to the template, and while that is correct that they aren't really staff I had put them there to keep them in a stern show category. That way they could easily be linked to the other stern pages since there isn't currently a stern show category, it was deleted in February.Optigan13 04:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Genres

Well, therein lies the problem: your definition of what a band is or isn't clearly isn't what everyone else perceives the band to be. You consider a well-known music website to be unreliable because it doesn't fit your definition of a genre. I'm sorry, but that is not what Wikipedia is about at all. You don't want Wikipedia to be right, you want to be right.

Your elitist attitude towards genres and bands is clearly evident in all of your changes and your talk page here. Please stop editing the genres of bands to fit your personal vendettas. It is inappropriate to dismiss a source because it doesn't fit with your personal beliefs. Enfestid 21:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Because it was stated on "numerous talk pages" to be unreliable makes it so? Since when? Please tell me how it is unreliable, ignoring your own personal opinions. I will find yet more sources for you, if you so wish. Please stop changing the pages to fit your own personal opinions. Thank you. Enfestid 21:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain to me why you reverted the Linkin Park genre. It is not All Music or LastFM. Please stop changing the genre without explanation, or I will seek peer mediation. Thank you. Enfestid 21:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Linkin Park source was not All Music. Please check it. It was Artist Direct. I am going to edit the page, this time with numerous citations... you choose which one is reliable and I will leave it at that one, I don't care which. I will not edit the page again for a brief period, in keeping with Wikipedia rules. Enfestid 21:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Deadtome.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Deadtome.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 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. BetacommandBot 21:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Papa Roach

THEY ARE NOT A HARD ROCK BAND! AC/DC OR GUNS 'N' ROSES ARE HARD ROCK BANDS!! HARD ROCK SOUNDS MORE CLASSIC BUT PAPA ROACH ARE AN ALTERNATIVE ROCK BAND WITH POST-HARDCORE INFLUNCES!! SO PLEASE STOP CHANGE THE MUSICSTYLE OR I HAVE TO LOCK YOU UP!! AFI-PUNK

ok,

I refuse to let you guys? You are the only one who continues to add Christian Rock to the genres. Let me give you an example, if there was an article about you on wikipedia stating that you believe satan is our savior and that you're a satanist, and it came from reliable sources. Now, you yourself have told people that it is not true, but yet they continue to classify you as that. Shouldn't it be changed since? You know who you are, not other people. You know your not a satanist, so why should you be classified as that? Just please take that into consideration.

Pbroks13 13:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

My last warning till what? And way to completely ignore everything I just said. First of all, there was no consensus. Just because you and someone else agrees, that doesnt make it a consensus. And secondly, what sources say doesnt mean its true. By the way, those are not reliable sources. Of course Christian sources are going to say they are christian. Other reliable sources will say they are not. Third of all, I think Anberlin knows whether or not they are a Christian band or not. You want third party sources? Fine, I'll get some saying they are not a Christian band.

Pbroks13 16:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anberlin. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz] This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC).

INSULTS

YOU INSULTED AFI-PUNK SO YOU WILL BE LOCKED UP!! SO SAY GODBY TO WIKIPEDIA!! : )

Caution: Removal of maintenance templates on Guns N' Roses. using TW

May 2007

Please do not remove maintenance notices from articles, as you did to Guns N' Roses, if the suggested changes are still needed. If you believe that the problems outlined in the maintenance template do not apply to the article, it may be best to discuss the issue on the talk page. Removing maintenance templates without good cause may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. –Sebi ~ 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Switchfoot article: deletion of content

Hello. Please understand that I am not removing the "Christian rock" label because I disagree with it; I actually think of Switchfoot as a Christian band. There was a very large discussion about the the inclusion of this label, with a consensus result to exclude it. (I reopened the discussion later, with the same result.) As for the "post-grunge" and "power pop" labels, I remember that they used to be there; however, they appear to have been deleted by consensus, and I can't find the relevant discussions. T-rex (talk) and .phil. (talk) are relatively active in updating the article, and may be able to explain the removal of said genres. I am sorry for any confusion. --3M163//Complete Geek 16:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

• deleting per Wikipedia:Avoid trivia sections in articles

I see you've made a couple of edits like this. While section made oup whily of trivia are to be "avoided", that's not a license to go and simply delete the material. Often times lazy editors have put things in trivia which should be in the main part of the article. It's better to take a few minutes and integrate that material into the article. The section heading alone is not a reason to delete content. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see why you'd be confused by my comment versus my action. However I'm more tolerant of trivia sections than you - they don't bother me that much. If you want to delete specific items because they're irrelevant or unsourced I won't object. What I object to is deleting an entire section, parts of which are relevant and sourced, just because of guideline suggesting that a certain section title be avoided. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Papa RoACH

They are an Alternative Rock band not a Hard Roc band! hard rock bands are like nickelback/acdc/guns and roses/the scorpions and bands like this! they have maybe some influencex of hard rock but it sounds more like alternative rock or post-grunge!!i think papa rach have influences of post-grunge and post-hardcore and hard rock! bu its better to write just alternative rock/nu metal/rapcore! is that ok? Hardcore-SkA

WHY

WHY SHOULD I BE BLOCKED AND NOT YOU?? Hardcore-SkA

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Puppetslogo.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. Aksibot 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

AFI-PUNK

This guy is switching IPs, so there's no point in blocking an addresses unless its actively vandalizing. There's been no contribs from those addresses for a couple of days, so no block. If those addresses (or related addresses) start vandalizing, let me know. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A DEAL

I HAVE a Deal for you! let's talk about it with no insults or to block somebody!! ok Papa Roach have some Hard Rock influences but i think they have also Alternative rock and Post-Grunge influence but no alternative metal influences! i think it's good to write alternative rock/post-grunge/hard rock/nu metal/rapcore! it's that ok for you? listen to 12 Stones and Breaking Benjamin or another post grunge bands! they sound very the same think about it ok? Ska-Lord

Your edit to Billy Talent

Hey there. The edit to Billy Talent restored the vandalism you thougt you were removing, just thought I'd let you know. I understand you might have gotten confused or something. Cheers. -- Reaper X 17:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

I noticed you tagged the article Death pop for speedy deletion. However, the reason you have does not meet any of the official criteria for speedy deletion. I changed the tag to a proposed deletion, which is more appropriate in this case. Cheers! --Ginkgo100^talk 03:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Queerslogo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Queerslogo.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. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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. MER-C 11:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

YOU WANT TO BE BLOCKED?

I WILL NEVER BLOCK YOU BECAUSE I'M NOT AN BIG FAT ASSHOLE LIKE YOU!!! I WILL NEVER BLOCK ANYBODY!! MAN you are frustrated! Ska-Lord

I noticed your message on the above users talk page. Just wondered, how this being dealt with? Cheers.

Seraphim Whipp 21:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Screeching Weasel

Hello, sure I can clean up the discography section. My hope is to eventually make the Weasel page a featured article. I am looking at other featured bands as a guide. I am looking at AC/DC, Bob Dylan, The Jackson 5, the Pixies and the Sex Pistols. I am about to create my user page where I will list my plan of action. I saw you have done a lot of work for that page and I hope that you have time to work with me on it. Badalia 13:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Papa Roach is hard rock thats right

Yes they have some big influences of Hard rock but also a lot of Post-Grunge and Alternative rock! just say Alterntive rock/post-grunge/hard rock/nu metal/rapore! NOT ALTERNATIVE METAL!! we don't block each other we just talk in a normal way alright? on THE PARAMOUR SESSIONS are very diffrent influences. from pop punk to post-hardcore8(the song alive), post-grunge, hard rock, pop rock and a little bit from nu metal(because the song to be loved)! you know?? there are so many musicstyles1 SO YOU CAN SAY ALTERNATIVE ROCK you know? and GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER IS NOT JUST HARD ROCK!! that record has got punk and hardcore influences but also hard rock! BUT REMEmber the songs:BLOOD / TYRANNY / DONE WITH YOU OR BLANKET OF FEAR! Papa roach screams on this record and the scream comes from Hardcore-punk but this album is more POST-Grunge/alternative rock and hard rock! just listen to 12 Stones papa roach and 12 stones sounds very the same! PLEASE DON'T block me! LET JUST TALK TOGETHER!!! (but to say papa roach is a full hard rock band is wrong) Minuts to Rise

LOOK

I have here somthing! THEY MAKE alternative rock and they have some punk influences but no alternative metal! here:http://www.last.fm/music/Papa+Roach Minutes to Rise

Some say Hard rock,some say alternative rock and than just rock or punk/hardcore/metal it's crazy man^^ Minutes to Rise And here FOR GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER! it IS not just a HARD ROCK RECORD:http://www.last.fm/music/Papa+Roach/Getting+Away+With+Murder

Minutes to Rise

AND NU ROCK IS POST GRUNGE

VHI

DO YOU REALY THINK THAT THIS VHI PAGE I A REASON TO SAY THAT PAPA roach make Hard rock and alternative metal?? these guys from vhi thing kno a shit!

GETTING AWAY WITH MURDER

SO MANY PEOPLE SAY other musicstyls to this record here look:http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/paparoach/gettingawaywithmurder I think it's better to say just alternative rock!

CRAZY

Some say it's a Hard Rock record and than some say Rock/Nu Metal/Hardcore than just ROCK OR PUNK AND METAL!! IT'S CRAZY Minutes to Rise

Vandal sock pupper user

All the IPs vandalising Papa Roach and various music related articles come from Germany. You seem to have experience with this user, so I just wondered if there was any action you were going to implement?

Seraphim Whipp 18:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Posted message on Brendel's talk page...This user is stalking you. It's important that that is dealt with also.

Seraphim Whipp 23:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Logoramones.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 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hoponpop69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Signature^brendel 18:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I'm disappointed in you Hoponpop69. You know what it's like to be harassed and then you adopted even worse behaviour than the person (the IP range) that you were having problems with! Most users have their own things to do on wikipedia and BrendelSignature did explain that s/he was busy.

Seraphim Whipp 23:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

It has been established that you engaged in sockpuppetry by evidence presented here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hoponpop69, and you are therefore blocked for period of 72 hours. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires.

Stern Show Staff Page inclusions

I nominated Ronnie and Ralph for inclusion on the Stern Show Staff page. I remembered you pulled them from the template[1], so if you have an opinion let me know on that page's talk page. If you are really on a long term break, they are merges and can be undone, otherwise I'll see you after the block, or an extended break. Optigan13 06:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

please

Do not change The Paramour Sessions musicstyle! you know, and i know that his record has got only hard rock influences but it's not the main genre!it has got also pop rock and pop punk influences!^its post-hardcore/alternative rock! thanks Melodic Horror

I'm changing it because you have no sources to back it up.Hoponpop69 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

papa roach

Please stop changing the articel! i have links and sources for the styles! so please stop thanks Melodic Horror

He left worst personal attacks on his report itself under comments and I have no no intention to revert them as it's more first hand evidence. Anyway I only gave him the warning today which covers all attacks he has made. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see you back Hoponpop69. I hope your wikibreak has allowed you to de-stress and put past experiences behind you...although it doesn't look like the problem has been resolved. More people have recognised what's going on so it should be resolved now.

Seraphim ^Whipp 20:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Hoponpop69 20:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Help with filing a three revert report

I reported him for violating the 3rr but my report never showed up. Heres how I filed it[2]. Can you help me fix whatever I did wrong/Hoponpop69 20:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and he's also broken the 3rr here.[3]

Fixed it, you changed the example; you're supposed to copy, not just change. You should also probably fix the "version reverted to" and sign it. Gscshoyru 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Papa Roach. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Streetpunk

I think it would be better to take this to AFD, since so many articles already link to "streetpunk". I've removed the speedy tag. Zagalejo 04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I see. Whoops. Zagalejo 06:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Mallcore

Hi. As you most probably know, you have tagged the article Mallcore as speedy deletable material, on the basis that it was a recreated article. The article has been deleted through an AfD process a while ago, and was indeed recreated (not by me) four months later. The reasons that led to its deletion in December 2006 were that there was uncontestable POV and a list of bands. The present version of the article does not have those issues. If you want to delete the article, go through an AfD process. ZOUAVMAN LE ZOUAVE 11:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Nomination for Adminship

Thank you so much for the nomination, seriously I wasn't expecting it. But I don't know if I can accept it yet as I only created my account two months ago and there's is still so much that I don't know about wikipedia. I know I have done a fair amount of vandalism/sockpuppet fighting(for a newbie anyway) but I still want to make a stub article into a proper article (or something along those lines). I really appreciate the nomination but I think it would be better to nominate me when I feel like I know what I'm doing and I've made the super article which is currently stored in my head :D. When I create it, I will post a link to it on my talk page (I'll probably be very proud of it) and it'll be then when the nominations might start. But really thanks for having so much faith and confidence in what I have done here at wikipedia. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 13:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to question about sock puppet

In response to your question on my talk page, I was going to wait awhile to see if User:Alterego269 continues using User:68.88.73.146, or if it was just for a few edits today. If you want to file a sock report go ahead though, since it's very obvious that he was using that IP to evade a block.Spylab 17:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Today I added a sock puppet report here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Alterego269. Feel free to add more information if you find any.Spylab 13:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Is this another sock of AFI-Punk?

This guy doesn't look like to be another sock as his IP address can be traced to Melbourne, Austrailia where as AFI-PUNK lived in Germany. Also some of the edits may be similar but they're not all to do with Papa Roach. But thanks for keeping a lookout for another sock. Angel Of Sadness ^T/C 20:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

JOHNNY RAMONE - BACKING VOCALS

• JUST TO INFORM YOU, JOHNNY RAMONE NEVER SANG BACKING VOCALS. YOU ARE WRONGLY INFORMED AND NEED TO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT BEFORE PLACING INCORRECT INFORMATION ON RAMONES ARTICLES.

• What? I never said this!Hoponpop69 04:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Angel Of Sadness ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

AfD nomination of The Acro-brats

The Acro-brats, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that The Acro-brats satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Acro-brats (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Acro-brats during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. fuzzy510 19:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Racists

Please get a consensus before restoring the category. I've started a thread at Talk:David Duke#Anti-Racist. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You may be blocked if you continue to be disruptive. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, gladly. I'm going out now but can participate later. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm around if you want to discuss categories. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Acrobratslogo.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 06:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Your Family Force 5 Edit

08.19.07 -- Family Force 5 claims themself that they are "crunk rock". There are plenty of interviews in which they state that. However, the other genres that were there that you edited out I do disagree with and they have no reference. - user:SuperDMChan

Scum punk

If you have problems with an article being unsourced, and that article has survived a previous AFD, try to source it or send it back to AFD. Don't nominate it for speedy deletion - it's not speedy deletable. Fabricating reasons for speedy deletion and then blanking the article is vandalism and may result in you being blocked. --Coredesat 09:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless - if you can't source it, take it to AFD, especially if it survived a previous AFD. --Coredesat 03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are about to violate the three-revert rule. If you don't want to be blocked, just take the article to AFD like I and another person have suggested to you three times now. It would likely be deleted there, and this survived a previous one, so it cannot be speedily deleted. --Coredesat 22:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't..

Try to patronise me son. I delete nonsense. - The Daddy 20:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Mears man has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the support, or at least for sticking up for me. I appreciate it. —Mears man 03:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Taking Back Sunday

Tell me where the rule is about making false information true. And MySpace is the best source there is because the band members made and edit their MySpace page. They are mainly a rock band, not emo. The information in the infobox should match the information in the rest of the article, and it doesn't. + ! /\/\ ^^ 3 |-| \/\/ |_| Z |-| 3 R 3 03:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't need a citation for every little fact about a band, especially not for a genre. Look at any other band article. There are rarely citations on genres. So do not put the citation request up again because it is not needed. Tim Y 03:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Emo should also be removed as the genre because it is not a genre at all. It's a style of rock music, more specifically alternative rock. Tim Y 04:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Unexplained removal of content

That's fair enough. It would have been nice if the IP, who made the edit, had taken part in the articles discussion(by looking at his edit history) or at least mentioned it in the edit summary. But deleting sourced content without an explaination kind of sets off the alarms. AngelOfSadness talk 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Citations

I did remove a citation request on Taking Back Sunday only once, and then I read the one policy page and I then agreed it should be there. That was the only citation I removed EVER. I don't think I removed any more after that, unless it was by accident. And if it was, I'm sorry. But that's no reason to report me. Tim Y (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep adding citation needed tags to so many articles, mainly genres. And then you report people who remove them. Nobody else, not even administrators thought the hardcore punk genre needed a citation until you came and added it. Tim Y (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And the ycPaperwalls.jpg DOES have a fair use rationale so it should not be deleted. Tim Y (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The image has a rational. Stop reinserting the message, or if there's some other reason, at least tell me. Tim Y (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't need sitations unless the genre is challenged. I see you added a citation needed tag to the Hardcore Punk genre on the Yellowcard page. Why would there need to be a citation for that and not for the other 2 genres? Or genres on the dozens of other band pages that don't have citations at all. Tim Y (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

But you don't need to make sure Pop Punk and Alternative Rock are factual genres for Yellowcard? You don't need to make sure the fact that lights and sounds sold soandso copies isn't factual? I don't see a difference in the factuality between Hardcore Punk and Alternative Rock, or between Hardcore Punk and anything else unsourced in the article. Tim Y (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

There! It's got a citation! But I know you're just gonna go add citation needed tags on genres on many other random band pages and get many more people angry with you. Tim Y (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

And I also hope your happy that you blocked me for no reason. I know it won't go through because you completely lied. I only deleted citation requests and added the website link BEFORE I knew about the rules against doing that. Once I read the policies, I stopped doing that stuff. Tim Y (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Blocked: 24 hours for edit warring on NOFX and incivility ("Hey daddyasshole"). Berating someone for not using the talk page and then not using it youself is also not particularly gentlemanly. Thatcher131 02:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, editors are allowed to reove warnings from their own talk pages and are not required to leave them posted or archive them (although removal may be considered rude it is permitted). You were edit warring on User talk:Daddy Kindsoul. Don't do it again. Thatcher131 02:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been over 24 hours, why am I still blocked?

Also your claim that I berated him without using the talk page is untrue. I actually started a discussion on the talk page prior to this, to avoid an edit war.[4]

Hoponpop69 12:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Glam punk, you will be blocked from editing. The Daddy 10:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, it is reccomended by Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."

Hoponpop69 22:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The information is sourced, you just choose to vandalise it.. to challenge material you put a "cite" tag next to it, not blank 9/10ths of the entire article. Blanking seems to be your speciality. - The Daddy 23:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please show me where in that article I removed content that was sourced, without giving a valid explanation. Hoponpop69 23:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You didn't give a valid explanation at all. In fact you didn't write a single thing in glam punk's discussion page.Crescentia 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit summaries on the history page. I'd have thought you'd have seen that since you were just there reverting the article. Hoponpop69 03:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ramoneslogo1.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ramoneslogo1.gif. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia 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 non-free media 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 01:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul's profession

Nice catch. What do you think about also adding "businessman," since he is listed as having a coin business, an investment newsletter, and has mentioned how he ran his own business as a doctor? Since you seemed to be familiar with how other articles handle it, you may be better at knowing how that sort of thing is handled.--Gloriamarie 03:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, try bringing it up on the talk page and discuss it there. Hoponpop69 03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Deathrock

Instead of answering what I wrote in the talk page of deathrock you are threatening to delete the article if people don't give the citiations that YOU want. That is troll like behaviour. Why do you feel that the article should conform to what YOU think it should be? Citing Wiki rules, and using them to get what YOU particularly want without discussion is itself against Wiki rules. It is supposed to be about talking to one another, NOT about deleteing articles that don't conform to exactly your wishes.Crescentia 13:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Also I just consolidated your citation requests. Instead of after every instrument or band I put the citation request after the sentence. I think you went a bit overboard.Crescentia 16:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• First of all the edit you made makes it look like the only thing in question is the last part of the sentence. Secondly regardless you should not delete citation requests. Third you seem to claim that we don't need to follow wiki rules, and accuse me of trolling because I want to enforce them? That seems illogical to me. I'm reverting your edit, if you have a problem with that I suggest you file a request for an administrator to sort this out.

Hoponpop69 18:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a problem with you because you do not consult anybody before you make major edits, nor do you discuss why an article needs citations. Wiki is about discussion and sorting things out together, not about people using their particular POV to change articles. I accuse you of trolling because you are making edits without discussing any of them before doing so.Crescentia 18:51, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• You do not need to discuss why an article needs citations before adding citation requests. According to

Wikipedia:When to cite, any editor has the right to challenge unsourced material by opening a discussion on the talk page or by tagging it.

As for your accusations that I am trolling because I make edits without discussing them, I'll refer you to Wikipedia:What is a troll? which states, "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." I am deliberately trying to disrupt wikipedia, I am just trying to make sure the article does not have false information and points of view. Hoponpop69 19:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No you are not. You have not discussed ANY of your edits on the talk pages of the articles. Instead you just keep reverting your edits. Yes, you can tag articles, but edit warring with other people without an explanation as to why you want those edit tags is paramount to troll like behaviour. Putting cite tags after EVERY name of a band or instrument is overkill and ridiculous. By doing all of this you are disrupting Wikipedia, because you are spamming artciles with cite tags that make no sense. There is a difference between discussing wanting more info in an article and threatening the deletion of an article if things don't go the way you want them to.According to your talk page you have been accused of such behaviour before, and you have been suspended.Crescentia 19:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warning...

You are in danger of abusing the 3 revert rule on the deathrock page.Crescentia 19:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons Theme

The alternate versions cited in the "End Credits theme" section are not covers. At the end of every episode, a slightly different version of the theme airs over the credits. These themes have been changed occasionally to different versions that reflect a theme of that particular episode - there's been a "Jazz Quartet version", "Hockey Organ Version" "Australian Version", etc. And, on a few occasions, these alternate versions have been played by musical guests - Sonic Youth, NRBQ, Los Lobos, Yo La Tengo, etc. The section is about the end credits theme, and it cites the versions played by different artists as examples. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But because they are not done by Danny Elfman that makes them covers. A cover is a song that is played by an artist that is not an original. Hoponpop69 22:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Alf Clausen has taken over the musical directing, so that means it wouldn't be a cover. The end credits version is different from the main theme anyway. I've asked the good folks at WP:SIMPSONS for opinions on the matter. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:11, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Technically it would still be a cover. But I'll see what the WP: Simpsons people think. Hoponpop69 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why was this uneligible for deletion?

The Scum punk article can be deleted if there is consensus to do so. However, it is not eligible for speedy deletion or proposed deletion because the article survived an articles for deletion discussion. I hope that answers your question. - EurekaLott 14:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Surf punk

So I created the surf punk article a while back and I check on it and it's pending deletion. So I came to you, the one who suggested the deletion. Although I think I did write it horribly, I don't think it should be deleted. I mean, we have plenty of examples, Agent Orange, the Surf Punks? And it gets 2,780,000 Google hits. Anyway, why do you want to delete it? I'm just saying that it should be rewritten...--Ghostbear616 02:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The Classic Crime

Ok Frist of all we have already been over this while you left Wikipedia Myself and other members that discused The Classic Crime have already found out that they are not christian band by looking cite were the band its selfs say it is not a christian band and how other cite have said that one of the few bands on tooth and nail that are not christian. And also we have found cite saying about the band being Emo. Iam sorry but we have already been over this so plese stop Removing Emo and putting christian rock in its place.

Now for the last time Myeslf and other members of Wikipedia havw already found site saying that the isn't a christian band, and also we have found site saying that the band is Emo. So once agian Plese stop change the Genre. Thank you.

Please sign your posts, and if you have sources than post them, otherwise I will revert. Hoponpop69 02:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK HOPONPOP69 iam starting to getting angery!! And iam not a sockpuetter the other person that has the same name as mine is a friend of mine in real life he made his own name on here and yes i know it is almost the the same. ALSO i have been over this mant time with that long ago we had a debetae about the band being christian rock or not and we found information that there not a christian band. AND Just because they play at one christian festval doesnt make tham a christian band. AND honeslt that article doesnt even look real. I mean come on if AC DC performed at conerstone would that make them a christian band. And PLSES REFRAME FROM TAKING OUT EMO AND INDIE ROCK for iam going to add cites showing that they that genre. Thank you Oh here are so cites say that they are an Emo/Punk/Indie Rock.http://www.infuzemag.com/reviews/music_reviews/the_classic_crime:_albatross/ http://www.melodic.net/reviewsOne.asp?revnr=4929 there you go there emo/punk.

That still gives you no right to remove my source. Bands like AC/DC never play at christian rock festivals for the simple fact that they are NOT Christian rock bands. Please agree here to have this feud moderated by an admin.[5] Hoponpop69 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Now first of all I DON"T LIKE THE FACT YOU ARE TELLING EVERONE IAM A LIER. Now the Meditation we did Is now the same type. Myself and the onther four people did just a little thing and i will try to being it up for YOU, and i dont like the fact how you said i can type you need to shut up are you perfect. No one perfect only Godfrey, Gilbert. Now are we going to start the disscution or not?User:skateremorocker

Your GA nomination of Ramones

The article Ramones you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Ramones for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. Cheers, CP 22:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Classic Crime. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 04:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your GA nomination of Eric the Midget

The article Eric the Midget you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Eric the Midget for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. VanTucky ^Talk 22:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Sin City (description), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Martial BACQUET 00:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

How is removing information that had been unsourced since September considered unconstructive? Hoponpop69 02:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Restored

I restored it. -- John Reaves 03:12, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Devilock2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Devilock2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. OsamaK 16:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Acid Punk

That Acid punk article is hogwash IMHO. I think it's a valid genre, however, and the list of groups isn't bad. If your citation requests don't bear fruit it should definitely be pared down. Wwwhatsup 00:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Majorlabeldebut.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Majorlabeldebut.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins

I reverted your message on the talk page for The Smashing Pumpkins because it has less to do with direct work on the article itself and more with canvassing for opinions on a debate on an unrelated talk page. I'd recommend you instead personally contact users that have been involved in genre debates, or that you know have expressed concern with Allmusic as a genre source, but even then that might be seen as negative canvassing. It's better to just let the debate run as is. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Canvassing. I'd recommend you revert similar posting you have made on article talk pages. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reframe this on the talk page, by simply stating "AMG lists them as grunge, do you think this should be listed here?". Then if people express opinions, I will go to their talk page an invite them to join the debate.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For now let the discussion carry on as is. If replies are slow in coming in the next few days then trying contacting others. People can get really testy about canvassing (I've seen people get mad when others ask a number of people to merely visit a Peer Review or FAC) WesleyDodds (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing contentious comments

(Refering to this edit.) In short: don't. :-) People don't like it if you remove pieces of what they are saying. It may make them mad, and that's not what we want, none of us. Even if there is quite clearly no constructive effect, removing it is likely to be less constructive. And in cases where the main part of a comment is actually very much to the point, as this one, I frown upon it even more. In my humble opinion, the best approach is a small reply to mitigate the impact. Just asking readers pleasantly to disregard the PS'es should be enough. And if you then still feel the user needs to be reprimanded, you can nicely do that on his/her talk page. To conclude, I lovingly request that you undo your edit, and proceed to express your disagreement in another way. And know that I share your reasons for this action, Wikipedia would be nicer without such comments. But you can't forcefully change people, they should be approached as you yourself would like to be approached. Enjoy. -- Pepve (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me not forget to state that this explicitly applies to content and intent of messages. Limited editing to correct non-intentional and non-content errors such as wrong URL's, forgotten indents and unsigned comments is of course alright. -- Pepve (talk) 02:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I have failed to compel you to revert your edit, or even respond to my criticism. This leaves me with nothing, as communication is all we got. I'm disappointed. -- Pepve (talk) 01:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just revert it yourself, you don't need my permission.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood me, I'm sorry that I wasn't any clearer. I meant to ask you to revert it. And more importantly, I want to convince you not to do things like this again. Thank you. -- Pepve (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg Over You

I restored Blitzkrieg Over You. Also, would you please archive your talk page? It takes while to load for people with slower computers. John Reaves 06:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

How would I go about archiving it?Hoponpop69 (talk) 06:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Most people would cut and paste the content to something like User talk:Hoponpop69/Archive 1. John Reaves 06:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Regarding Extremschrammeln

http://www.ulnoe.at/literaturundwein/geschichte/extrem.php?naviaktiv=nav4&step=musik Phil Bridger (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pervodevo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Pervodevo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Comments regarding Good Morning Revival

Hi Hoponpop69. I know you are frustrating with 146.115.43.96 over the dispute at Good Morning Revival. But please refrain from comments such as the this. I've redacted it and the other comment related to it from the IP's talk page, and I ask that you do not restore them.

With regards to dispute, I posted some suggestions for the "Criticms" section at the talk page, Talk:Good Morning Revival. If you commented there, I would appreciate it very much.  :) Cheers, Iamunknown 01:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Cobra Skulls

A tag has been placed on Cobra Skulls requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 02:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cobra Skulls

One source doesn't seem adequate, though. That's just my opinion, though. Master of Puppets ^{Care to share?} 02:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There's some tag that says a page needs additional sources, in this case that tag would be appropriate.Hoponpop69 (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment left on Talk:Cobra Skulls Wwwhatsup (talk) 03:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive

Hi, I see you haven't archived your talk page in a while, and it's getting rather long. I suggest you archive it sometime soon, unless you were planning on archiving it at the end of the year. Thanks. Timmeh^contribs 19:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Manic Sewing Circle

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Manic Sewing Circle, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Manic Sewing Circle

An article that you have been involved in editing, Manic Sewing Circle, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manic Sewing Circle. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)