User talk:Johan Rachmaninov/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Johan Rachmaninov, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jza84 · (talk) 17:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cover 2008 gangrene.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:Cover 2008 gangrene.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our 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 (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shoegazing

Hi Johan - you recently renamed the article shoegazing 'shoegaze' - citing votes as the rationale. The only debate I know of can be found on the talk page of the article and ended in no consensus, resulting in the original term being kept. Could you let me know which votes you are referencing in your edit? Thanks NickW (talk) 19:18, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

technical death metal re: Death

Hello Johan. Not that I'm involved in the debate re: the term technical death metal, but I agree with you that if that term is used for Schuldiner & Death, that there needs to be references. I have placed three there. Take it easy. A Sniper (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point - I think although it is true that the band influenced others, by the last album they were playing EITHER what would be described as technical death metal or progressive death metal - the problem is that, as we know from that recent edit, if we get rid of technical death metal and put merely progressive death metal, someone will edit it out claiming that progressive death metal dumps into the technical page. I just think it is invalid to list death without one or the other, especially with the impact of the Human album and those beyond... Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thrashcore

What do you think about just redirecting Thrashcore to Power violence? Since they became/pretty much the same thing.Inhumer (talk) 07:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power violence/thrashcore

hi, Saw that you undid my "redirect" from thrashcore to power violence, and then suggested that thrashcore be deleted, for good measure. I didn't mean to cause offense by merging the two articles, but it seemed to me to be the best and most helpful way of clarifying things and ensuring the notability of both (small, underground) genres. After all, all of the groups mentioned as "prefiguring" power violence are thrash groups, and most of the members of power violence groups went on to form thrashcore groups. I felt that my article on the "thrashcore" page made my case reasonably clearly. Now, I know that it's difficult to locate external (non-online) sources for thrashcore, whereas there is the one article on power violence from Decibel. Part of the problem is that I think thrashcore tended to be referred to simply as "thrash", but this is makes things difficult on Wikipedia because that creates so much confusion with thrash metal. Most of the sources on thrashcore are old zines (MRR, HeartattaCk, etc.) -- and I don't have an extensive library of back issues. I'd like to discuss further why you felt that thrashcore needed to be deleted, or why you think that power violence (a very brief moment in hardcore/thrash, lasting from about 1988-1993) is more notable than the entirety of the thrash genre (lasting from 1983-present). Best, Andrew Aryder779 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also -- I agree with Inhumer -- if you want to redirect "thrashcore" to power violence and maintain information on the pre- and post-power violence thrash groups under that heading, that's an acceptable compromise to me, especially as it makes sense of the list of precursors for PV. Aryder779 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'm not sure you'll(Aryder) see this, but I wouldn't say PV is dead. Its just not around to the degree it once was.Inhumer (talk) 01:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inhumer - I don't know of any current bands that identify as power violence. The singer from Charles Bronson is in Das Oath (thrashcore), one of the members of Spazz runs the 625 Thrashcore label, the Man Is the Bastard guys make noise music as Bastard Noise, Discordance Axis identifies as grindcore, Crossed Out is long gone, Spazz is gone, the Locust are ... noise rock or cybergrind, but certainly not PV anymore. Aryder779 (talk) 14:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan -- I agree that my merger of the two pages and revisions to the power violence article, without discussion, was poor etiquette, and I apologize. There are plenty of bands who identify themselves as thrashcore -- it's not an external term made up by critics. The existence of the 625 Thrashcore label attests to this. If you follow the Wiki links on any of the bands identified as thrashcore in the article, you'll find them named as such on their own pages (and that's not something I've done out of some weird advocacy for a fictious genre). The lineage of power violence precursors is made up entirely of thrashcore groups (Siege, Lärm, D.R.I.), which, to me, makes power violence an offshoot -- calling those groups "proto-power violence" is misleading. Aryder779 (talk) 15:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea -- I suppose I can accept some sort of integration between the thrashcore page and the "crossover thrash" section of thrash metal, in that many of the early thrashcore groups end up here. The trouble with this is that it does something strange to the chronology -- early thrashcore groups precede thrash metal -- and it creates a problem with more contemporary groups like Los Crudos and Das Oath, who would never identify with thrash metal, even in the "crossover" form. Aryder779 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Religion

Why do you keep changing the genre on the Bad Religion page by calling them pop punk? They are actually not a pop-punk band, they are a hardcore punk band. If you don't believe me, listen to their albums like Suffer or No Control and you'll realize they're not pop-punk. To call them a pop-punk band is inaccurate, because they are not like Blink-182, Green Day or Sum 41, who use that genre. Alex (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Johan, you're the one who is vandalizing the page, and my changes were not vandalism. I doubt that anyone else would agree that Bad Religion is considered a pop punk band. If you keep changing the genre, I will ask an administrator to block the page. I'm sorry but you are wrong, they are a hardcore punk band, NOT a pop punk band. Enough is enough, stop changing the genre. Alex (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan, I'm not kidding around. Please stay the hell off the Bad Religion page. When I say stop chaning the genre, you stop. Got it? Alex (talk) 23:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan, why aren't you listening to me? This is your last warning: STOP CHANGING THE GENRE OR ELSE I WILL ASK AN ADMINSTRATOR TO BAN YOU! I hope there's not gonna be any hard feelings that you realize that the genre you kept adding was wrong. For the last time, I'll say it again: STOP CHANGING THE GENRE, PLEASE! Alex (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm giving you one more warning to stop, Johan

Johan, you are in so much trouble. How many times do I need to tell you to keep away from the Bad Religion page? You have been reported for vandalism and it's time that you should give up and stop vandalizing on the Bad Religion page. You have gone too far, you have been vandalizing over 10 times already, and you have no authority to edit the Bad Religion page anymore. Alex (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. CIreland (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hello, Johan. I just wanted to apologize for the punk rock/pop punk argument on the Bad Religion page and accusing you for vandalizing that page. You're not in trouble anymore and you still have the authority to edit the page. When you re-added the pop punk genre today, I didn't have to revert again because I knew you were going to revert me back again. But just because some people, including you, call them pop punk, doesn't make them a real pop punk band. They may have been an influence on that genre, but that doesn't make them a pop punk band either. To me, calling Bad Religion a pop punk band is just crazy, they're just nothing like blink-182 or Sum 41, who are real pop punk bands. Alex (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Nirvana (band) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Channel ® 09:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nirvana as an alt-rock band

Hi Johan. I happened to come across the discussion on the Nirvana talk page, and I'm a bit confused as to why you think that a band can't be both a grunge band and an alt-rock band at the same time. While there is a fair bit of overlap between the two genres, they're both descriptive genre labels that I think apply equally well to Nirvana. The fact that reliable sources are present in the article to back up the "alt-rock" description would imply to me that that label has a place there. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Libs (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melvins

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Melvins. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Channel ® 12:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crust punk

hi, I appreciate the revisions you've made to the crust punk article. I have one question: I added "Post-punk" as a stylistic origin, because Amebix, Nausea, and Neurosis all borrowed from Killing Joke, and sometimes Joy Division. I'd like to add it again, with a reference to Felix Havoc's article which mentions Killing Joke as crucial for Amebix. The Day the Country Died also points out Killing Joke's seminal influence, as do interviews with the drummer of Nausea, and Neurosis. I think it's important to indicate this background influence, though admittedly it's more subtle than the D-beat/speed metal elements. Aryder779 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

redirects

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Can you stop altering redirects (particularly regarding rap, hip hop music, hip-hop music, etc.?) The locations these redirects and articles is a subject of some discussion as there is no obvious way to do it. The issue has been discussed at length and the changes you keep making have not been agreed by consensus. Thanks. tomasz. 17:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. :This is the second time I've warned you. I discussed you case with an admin friend and decided to AGF you at the time. No more AGF for you if I see you revert anymore edits for no reason other than you own POV, you will be blocked from editing. Libs (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Libs (talk) 16:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing sourced content from the NOFX article

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 19:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had better read WP:ALBUM#Genres or you are going to get blocked again

WP:ALBUM has a set list of rules for editing albums. You are ignoring it and are about to be reported to administrators again for 3RR. Your block this time will be for a week.

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. 88.97.18.124 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for one week due to persistent edit warring. Please consider modifying your editing behavior and stop polluting the collaborative editing atmosphere by repeatedly reverting across multiple articles; acting as such is directly against communication, moderation, and treating others with dignity. east.718 at 00:04, June 24, 2008