User talk:Mikeis1996

Welcome

Hi Mikeis1996, and welcome to wikipedia. Just wanted to give you some advice. I refer to the trivia section you created at Scars (Papa Roach song), which I have removed. Please read WP:TRIVIA; as per wikipedia guidelines, trivia sections should be avoided. If you have noticed trivia sections on other articles on wikipedia, please either deleted them or integrate the information into the main article. If you cannot integrate the information neatly into the main article, this is a good indication that the information does not belong on wikipedia.

Please also read MOS:OPED. Phrases such as "Interestingly enough", which you added to the article, cannot be used on wikipedia.

I've gone through some of your other edits, and noticed you have added many references to wikipedia. Whilst adding references is appreciated, please format your references in the future using an approved method such as Template:Cite web. As well as looking a lot tidier, formatting references (As opposed to using bare URLs) helps rectify link rot, as when parameters such as date of publication and author are specified, it is far easier to find the new location or another copy of your original reference. Here is an example of the difference [1]; note how the reference now appears down the bottom of the article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recently created article Tomorrow (SR-71 song)

Hi! I noticed your recently created article and thought I could help a bit. I removed a tag, WP:COATRACK, because I did not think it applied. Then I looked for a source to cite. I found an article at MTV News (on the Internet, see cite) and made changes to your wording to reflect the contents there. I hope you don't mind. Please feel free to change my edit or add more material based this article or other reliable sources. - Neonorange (talk) 10:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Now You See Inside may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

| title1 = [[Politically Correct SR-71 song)|Politically Correct]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to The Unforgiven (song), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:39, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Let Me Go (3 Doors Down song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Post-grunge, you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mikeis1996, I have reverted your genre changes. If you still feel strongly about any of the edits that have been reverted, the accepted course is to start a discussion on the respective article's talk page, with your reliable sources and gain consensus for the changes before making them. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at Between Angels and Insects, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited F.E.A.R. (Face Everything and Rise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Connection. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bon Jovi (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Won't Turn Back (song)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Won't Turn Back (song), Mikeis1996!

Wikipedia editor I dream of horses just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've made some changes to the article.

To reply, leave a comment on I dream of horses's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for September 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark Horse (Nickelback album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Born to Be My Baby, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 06:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Mouth (Bush song), you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chart edit

Hello. Appreciate your correction on the Canadian peak position on Metallica's Justice for All album. For the record, when you are incorporating new link, do not delete all the parameters from the citation template. Just put the link into the "url=" field in place of the old one and update the dates if needed. Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 06:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Two (The Calling album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Photograph (Nickelback song), you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 04:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at The Unforgiven (song), you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for repeated arbitrary changes to genre. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Three Days Grace, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electronic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Bitch (Sevendust song)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Black (Sevendust song)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

Sevendust (album)

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Home (Staind song), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 22:34, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Staind (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heavy metal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Post-grunge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daughtry. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please start using sources more frequently when making additions to Wikipedia. I've had to revert a number of your edits lately because they are entirely unsourced, and/or sound like personal editorials. Considering your past warnings and blocks for adding unsourced material, you could find yourself blocked pretty quickly again. Please stop. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will stop, also, I was the one who created new pages for Wikipedia. I always cite a source and try my best to find a good reliable source. I edit a lot of things in Wikipedia and I also created a lot of new pages and you know what, many of those edit pages and new ones are still here today. I also expanded some pages like the post-grunge wikipedia page which looked dull before I took my chance and I edit it, if not, that page would still looked the same dull and with not a lot of information on there. I edit new pages and gave them more than what they originally had. I really deserved more on this page, as for your unsourced, I mostly put a source on something except for the things that aren't really that important, to me, not everything has to have a specific source, I think the important things do but the ones that aren't important aren't really needed. I did a lot on here, I edit a bunch of things and I also created a lot of pages and it wasn't for me, that probably wouldn't be possible. I will stop but remembered that, I always add a source and take my time editing something. Thank you for your comment and your statement, yes, I do agree that I do have a few things unsourced because to me those things aren't important, I hope I make sense.

Thank you though.

Well, you don't always cite a source, that's why I left you the warning. For instance, here you added a ton of text and personal commentary to an article, all unsourced. Also, here you attempted to add new names for the subject, again, without source or edit summary. I realize you make some good contributions to the project, and I appreciate that. But its edits like these 2 examples that you need to stop doing. Sergecross73 msg me 18:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to work with you here, and we can discuss on the article's talk page, but you absolutely cannot be re-adding massive blocks of unsourced and awkwardly written content, like you have in this edit. There's so much wrong here. For starters, you can't make an unsourced assertion that Scott Stapp was mimicking Eddie Vedder in his singing. That's WP:OR and borderline WP:BLP violation. If you find sources, you could say that "journalists observed similarities between the two" or something like that, but you can't just up and say that as you have. Sergecross73 msg me 21:12, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know, the Scott Stapp and Eddie Vedder thing was from a article that I found in the internet a couple of days ago, I really didn't like that line so I am glad you delete that. Also, I don't think there should be a second wave from 2000-2009, I think that is too long. Besides, people who enjoy post-grunge knows that after 1996, there was a big shift from that genre and the genre grew more popular in the late of the 90s all the way throughout the early 2000s. After the early 2000s, things changed and new bands appeared, 3 doors down and Daughtry are not in the same wave, 3 Doors Down were from the second wave so I am not really a fan of that section. I think after 2002, there should be a new section of third wave bands, bands that were bands like Three Days Grace, Daughtry, and Hinder which all came in the mid 2000s and weren't part of the early 2000s post-grunge scene. Although, there were new successful post-grunge acts in the mid 2000s-late 2000s, there were still successful ones from the beginning of the decade like Nickelback and 3 Doors Down were still successful in the last years of that decade even though they are older than the new bands like Three Days Grace, Hinder or Daughtry which came after. Also, the second wave seems like a huge big gap, I am not a fan of it, I don't think it should take the entire decade for a second wave which it really didn't. I hope you fix that, the late 1990s post-grunge movement mostly belongs with the early 2000s post-grunge movement, after that it changes but there were still several successful post-grunge acts from the early years of the decade that still manage to released successful albums. Hope I helped and thank you.

I agree, 2000-2009 is a long gap and a large section, but I felt it could also be trimmed back some as well. Many of your additions, while good information, mention the subject over and over again, when it really could be worded more efficiently. (For example, you added a second section mentioning of the Foo Fighters forming, and you used the word "Higher" like 5 times in 2 sentences.
I'll start a discussion on the talk page about how/where to cut off the sections. I wouldn't want to start off a new section about 1996, for example, because there wasn't all that much happening with it before that date. Also, I didn't really know where to split between 2000 to 2009. Things changed a lot between 90s rock and the 2000's, but not nearly as much over the 2000s. Of those bands you list, both 3 Doors Down and Three Days Grace released platinum selling albums in the early 2000's, so I'm not sure I agree with those examples. The only reason I kept 2010 as a stopping point is that the genre has seemed to lost its relevence, very few high profile post-grunge albums exist these days, and almost none of them get certified platinum like in the 2000s. Sergecross73 msg me 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got an idea, first, the first section and the last section are ok, although, I wouldn't really put decline because the whole genre is still not fully decline, I would changed that and I will add declining and current. I will add declining because there are still a lot of post-grunge bands releasing albums in the first years of this new decade which are the 2010s, then, also add current because they are currently still new releases and the genre have not fully declined yet, post-grunge bands are still releasing albums even though they are declining in terms of their previous efforts. Also, for the second section, I will add, Second wave and more mainstream success which can result from 1997-1999, after that, I will add, third wave and more popular which can result from 2000-2002. Then, I will lastly put Fourth wave and continued success 2003-2009, I hope I helped. That is what I got in mind, if you have any ideas, please feel free to shared them with me and I will edit on the pages. But, as of right now, I won't changed anything at all until you tell me what is good and what is bad and what to add and what not to add. We have to worked together on this, we have to work like a band full of two guys or two people helping each other like recording a studio album, I think that is how we should worked. If you have any good ideas, pleased shared them with me and I will edit the page. I want people to take their time and read the pages carefully and enjoyed themselves. I didn't like the page at all before, it was dull compared to other pages like the nu metal, or glam metal which had sections, the post-grunge didn't even had sections until I came and decided to edit them so I deserved more credit on that. But, we need to work together on this.

Thank you for comment and your advice, I do understand that the big gap of second wave from 2000-2009 sounds kind of silly but we need th change that, I edit and created new pages here on this site, people re-do them and liked to worked on them, I think it's best for us to work together as a team.

Thank you.

I'd rather get the opinions of some other editors. Your timeframes appear to be set rather arbitrarily. I'll propose it on the talk page soon. Right now, we're trying to figure what to do with all of your edits. You added a lot of content, yes, but the article no longer has any sense of flow, and you've introduced a ton of formatting issues and bad sources. You may want to chime in. Sergecross73 msg me 23:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Police. Please stop editing in a disruptive manner. If you insist on making a change to that page or other pages in a similar manner, I suggest discussing it on their respective talk pages first to obtain a consensus. Bossanoven (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding continued genre changing without discussion or sources. If you choose to continue, as you did at The Connection (Papa Roach album), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Saliva (band), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Green Day. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't edit anything on Wikipedia based on some user called "Correctingsection0062

Hello, I currently can't edit anything on Wikipedia. My account is not blocked, my IP address is damage and blocked because of a random user called Correctingsection0062. He has to stop with his silly disruptive editing. His disruptive editing is making my account to not edit stuff because we shared the same IP address. This is a problem because I can't edit anything on wikipedia based on some person who decided to use his/her silly disruptive editing. How do I put a stop to this? ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

EdJohnston could you please see if an inadvertant block has been created. If so this suggests another problem which I'll have a look at. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, I can't fix this unless you tell us the actual message that you get when you try to edit. Most likely it includes an IP address that is affected by the block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston When I try to edit, it states, You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia due to an autoblock affecting your IP address. Then it states, This is because someone using this internet address or shared proxy server was blocked. The ability of all users on this IP address to edit pages has been automatically suspended to prevent abuse by the blocked party. Innocent users are sometimes caught in an autoblock. It may be the case that you have done nothing wrong. Then it states, Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Correctingsection0062". The reason given for Correctingsection0062's block is: "Continued genre warring after the March 21 block. Per a second. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you have resumed editing, so whatever autoblock this was must have gone away. EdJohnston (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wherever You Will Go. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't cite a reference for a song's genre when the reference says nothing about the song's genre. Binksternet (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please use cite template instead of bare URLs. You can also use User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill. 115.164.176.238 (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated, Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wherever You Will Go. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Don't cite a reference for a song's genre when the reference says nothing about the song's genre. But a user called Te og kaker decided to edit on the Wherever You Will Go page and decided to add and put the genre term of Alternative rock with no sources at all. He also edits on other wikipedia pages and never really puts a source. This user also said in a December of 2013 edit that the song itself was post-grunge in the chorus but mostly alternative rock. Here is what he stated in December of 2013, The song is more only Alt.rock than Post-grunge,, though having some Grunge characteristics at the chorus. Several album tracks such as Unstoppable are PG anyway though. This song was recorded 2001.). This was the same user that edit on the Wherever You Will Go wikipedia and he never puts or even bother adding a source. He changes the genres and only carries on my sources because he never really put one up. This user is editing stuff without a reliable or with no sources at all just adding genres in based on his opinions.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 23:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

Failed verification

At Adrienne (song) you have been edit-warring over genre off and on for almost a year.[2][3][4][5] You have been trying to push its genre as post-grunge. Your latest effort[6] misrepresented a source – AllMusic – which did not even mention the song. Please don't misrepresent sources. Binksternet (talk) 01:27, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Calling post-grunge

Hi. It seems like the classification of The Calling as a post-grunge band means a lot to you. As I already have pointed put, I think alternative rock fits better as the primary genre than post-grunge. At their first album, there were several songs who carries post-grunge influences, particularly the opening track "Unstoppable". At their second album, however, there was very little post-grunge. And keep in mind that PG is a subgenre of AR - everything which is PG is also AR, but not the other way around. If you look at articles about other PG bands, most of them have the genre "alternative rock" before "post-grunge". Foo Fighters is a band which is a lot more post-grunge than The Calling, but the infobox states "Alternative rock, post-grunge, hard rock". The article about Pearl Jam states "Alternative rock, grunge, hard rock", although they are most known for their grunge music, as they were one of the most popular grunge acts. You also changed the genre from alternative rock to post-grunge for the song Adrienne and added a source which said that the album was mostly filled with PG, but the source did not even mention the song. This is wrongful citation as you are using a reliable website as a source for something that the source doesn't state. That's like adding hard rock and heavy metal as genres for To Be With You because the album was mostly filled with hard rock and heavy metal songs - which would be true but that song is not even close to hard rock. Another thing which annoys me is that when you are changing the order of the two genres, you always let the sources for post-grunge stand behind alternative rock, not behind post-grunge. If you are going to use references, you have to put them in the right place. If not, they just make a lot of mess. Te og kaker (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what your trying to say, yes, post-grunge is a sub-genre of alternative rock and so as grunge and many others but when I add the post-grunge term first is because I am trying to say in what type of movement they were. I think post-grunge fits more because it's more specific. There are many bands who record a alternative rock song but aren't really in the same genre, for example a band like Papa Roach and Green Day aren't really in the same genre at all but both have recorded a alternative rock song but they are different and don't belong in the same movement. Also, you stated that, Pearl Jam states "Alternative rock, grunge, hard rock", although they are most known for their grunge music, as they were one of the most popular grunge acts, well not all of the bands have the alternative rock label first. Look at the Nickelback, Creed and Hoobastank pages, these bands have the post-grunge label first than alternative rock. Also, a song like Adrienne is hugely post-grunge despite of you not really knowing it. The song is heavier and louder than a lot of the tracks from their first album so I think is really appropriate to add the post-grunge label to that song. As for their second album, yes, I do agree that is more alternative rock than post-grunge but a few songs can be classified as post-grunge such as One By One and Somebody Out There. It would be a lot better for the post-grunge label to be their primarily genre because they belong in that type of movement. Also, the sources that I have add, stated that, Alex Band rose to fame with The Calling, a post-grunge act so it makes more sense for post-grunge to be their primarily genre. We all know that they are post-grunge and alternative rock but to be more specific they are post-grunge because they belong in the movement and also, many bands from different genres can record and make a song that would be classified and label as alternative rock.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 02:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC) )[reply]

I told you need to use cite template or User:Zhaofeng Li/reFill rather than simply bare URL through lazy references. 115.164.60.235 (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reload genre

Hey dude, if you want to add hard rock, I suggest using the talk page first to avoid edit war there. By the way, you are citing a review by a user named "unregistered" from a blog.--Retrohead (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Love Me Tender (song), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acoustic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref tip

Refill can fix the bare refs for you automatically, will save you lots of time and let you focus on the things that need manual intervention. https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/index.php - in the manual are some instructions for adding this tool into your toolbox links so its easily accessible from every page. 183.171.180.10 (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Sweet Child o' Mine, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 20:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change or delete a genre in pages without discussion, as you did at Welcome to the Jungle. Dan56 (talk) 23:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google ref maker

If you paste a google book url into http://reftag.appspot.com/ and click load it should make the whole citation for you. Copy and paste then into article. Hope this helps. 115.164.212.172 (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference basic

So since you were open to me giving you a few pointers here are some basics that I have picked up while messing around on Wikipedia for years. First of all I am not sure how well versed you are in wikipedia formatting so I will try to start with some basics. Okay so you're at a point where you've found a source to support something stated in an article on Wikipedia, this is where the references come in.

All references should be enclosed by the "ref" tag as shown below

<ref>This text here is considered the actual reference</ref>

Anything inside those tags will show up at the bottom of the screen in the reference section, indicated by the {{reflist}} tag at the bottom of the page, hopefully articles will have those, if not then it's in worse shape than you'd think. Anyway as a bare minimum people can throw a url inside the ref tags if nothing else, those can later be cleaned up by someone else if need be, but at least you have indicated where you've found the reference. You can also chose to add the article title etc. to help make for a better reference. There are three basic types of format you can use

Bare url - looks like this <ref>http://www.google.com</ref>
URL & Title - looks like this <ref>[http://www.google.com Google it]</ref>
Use of citation template - looks like this <ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.google.com | title=Google it! | publisher=Google | accessdate=July 1, 2015}}</ref>

Each of those is progressively better, if you are comfortable with it use the "Cite" version, that is the standard we're trying to set and the standard needed for any articles that would be listed as "Good Articles", "Featured Articles" or "Featured Lists". It is a little more challenging to get those right but it's not too complicated. Each type of source has it's own template, you can Cite a website, Cite a book you have, Cite a print newspaper, magazine or newsletter you can even Cite a DVD for a quote or cite an episode of a TV show. They all work basically the same, the links will give you additional information if you need to but here are the main points

Always start with {{cite web|, {{cite book|, {{cite news|, {{cite AV media|, {{cite episode| depending on your source
Seperate all data with a | sign
If there is a url add it as url=http://www.google.com
Add the title of the article, book, newspaper article ect. name=Google It
If you have a link to it, you can also indicate what day you looked up the article, content can change over time and it's good to indicate what day you're citing accessdate=The day you read it (Should not be included for citations without urls)
If there is a date on the article, book published date etc. indicate that date=June 1, 2000
Do you know who published the article? Put in it there publisher=Google Inc.
If you know the author put that in too author=Lastname, first name
Always close with the }}</ref> tags
<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.google.com | name=Google It | accessdate=July 1, 2015 | accessdate=June 1, 2000 | author=Apple, John}}</ref>

There are more options to add but to begin with I believe this will cover it, if not just ask me.

Note - Everyone makes mistakes, I make a ton of them on citations, that's why I always try to preview the article before I post it to ensure I did not mess anything up, look both at where in the text you added the citation and at the bottom in the reference list. There are a number of controls built in to ensure you have the right format for dates etc.

And don't be afraid to try, if it breaks something you can just revert out of it - that's the beauty of Wikipedia. One more thing, if you want to use the same reference for multiple things on a page you do not have to copy the whole thing, this is where a "named reference" comes in. Basically a named reference starts like this <ref name=RefX>{{ and then later on when you need to use the same reference again just put <ref name=RefX/> and that's all it takes to repeat a reference.

I hope this was helpful? MPJ -US 20:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied by 115.164.50.211 (talk) 08:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Away With Murder

Could you provide sources for the statement you made about fans criticizing their new direction? If you can, we'd be happy to include it here. DannyMusicEditor (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 5 albert square (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 5 albert square (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL again

I see you added a bare url again like this. Please format your citations fully. Or you can use https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/index.php - fix the bare refs for you automatically, will save you lots of time and let you focus on the things that need manual intervention. In the manual are some instructions for adding this tool into your toolbox links so its easily accessible from every page.

You can reduce the code clutter by using ref name function, see this. It is rather simple; instead of repeating the same ref many times, you add name=blah to the first one (so it becomes <ref name=blah>ref text</ref>), and all others can be just <ref name=blah/>. 115.164.222.86 (talk) 04:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URL...

Take look at WP:REF, There are various sections explaining how to use the cite on articles, Since cites are really important to the editors it's used to verify the contents whether they're true or not. Therefore, the article you have submitted was nearly verifiable, But the references you have given are used in improper manner take look at WP:REFB on that article you can see how the Reference should be used and what are not, In your article there are lot of bare links which actually ugly, So you should use it in a proper format that will help other readers to read the title, dates, author and web source before clicking on the reference. 123.136.107.185 (talk) 13:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Always bare URL...

Don't just bare URL. Please format your citations fully. Or you can use https://tools.wmflabs.org/refill/ 123.136.111.130 (talk) 02:07, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, by the way you can't see your own talk page, and always use bare URL. I will call admins to teach you how to do. 123.136.111.130 (talk) 02:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Your recent editing history at God Hates Us All shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Genre again

Like I said, I don't personally agree with it either, but we go by what reliable sources say on Wikipedia, and that user found some sources that say it.
Did you actually read the Consequence of Sound source? It calls them nu metal. And the current consensus is that they are a reliable source, as per their listing at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES. I admit that some of the sources were of low quality - when that user first added them, he included like 8 refs, and I trimmed out a bunch of them. But there were some that said it.
Most of the reasons you list ...are irrelevant. It doesn't matter who they toured with, or how much they rap. The traits you list are common, but not required for the genre. (Band like Staind, Puddle of Mudd, or Incubus (band) are commonly classified as nu metal, despite have little-to-no rapping or electronics involved.
Please don't lose sight of the actual content we're talking about here. We're talking about one tiny fraction of a sentence. Its not even mentioned in the infobox. Its a tiny fraction of the article that merely claims that sources referred to them as nu metal. It doesn't even call them nu metal, it merely says that people have called them nu metal. Right or wrong, the sources show that the claim has been made by source. But again, it's a tiny, tiny part of the article, all the way at the very bottom.

Please keep discussions at the article talk page though, we'll be more likely to get more input in the discussion that way. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced edits

I'm rather concerned by your last few edits. The sources you've used either don't support what you're proposing, or their definitely not reliable sources. Are you familiar with how Wikipedia defines a usually, reliable source? I can explain some things to look for, or avoid, if need be. Until you do, you'll probably be better off sticking to sources outlined at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES.

I also hope you're not making bizarre edits to prove a point though. That sort of thing could get you in trouble. Please don't do that. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminding you again that you should be adding sources when you add genre. If you don't stop, you may find yourself blocked from editing. Please stop this. Sergecross73 msg me 02:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

done it again. One more, and you're looking at a block. When you add genre to infoboxes, add a source. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Time and Time Again. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 123.136.106.206 (talk) 03:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bush

Bush are more grunge than post-grunge. Maybe the band's stuff after Razorblade Suitcase is post-grunge, but Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase are not post-grunge albums. Those albums sound a lot more like Nirvana than bands such as Creed and Nickelback. Also, Pearl Jam tend to sound a lot more radio-friendly than Bush. Let me tell you some things. Not all grunge bands are from Seattle. That's a stereotype. Here are grunge bands that are not from Seattle:

L7
Stone Temple Pilots
Silverchair
Hole
The Fluid
Babes in Toyland
Paw

Also, a lot of grunge bands have signed to a major label. These grunge bands have:

Nirvana
Pearl Jam (Their first album was released on a major label.)
Soundgarden
Alice in Chains (Their first album was released on a major label.)
Mudhoney
Temple of the Dog (their only album, which also is called Temple of a Dog, was released on a major label.)
Screaming Trees
Stone Temple Pilots (Their first album was released on a major label.)

Bush are influenced by the music that grunge is influenced by. They are influenced by Fugazi (punk rock band) and The Jesus Lizard (noise rock band). Also, grunge didn't die when Kurt Cobain died. Soundgarden released their album Down on the Upside in 1996 and their album King Animal in 2012. Both albums are considered grunge. Alice in Chains released their self-titled album in 1995. That album is considered grunge. Vitalogy by Pearl Jam was released after the death of Kurt Cobain and that album is considered grunge. Screaming Trees released their album Dust in 1996 and that album is considered grunge. It didn't become impossible to play grunge after the 1990s. Many grunge bands either abandoned the grunge sound or disbanded. It was just a coincidence. That didn't make it impossible to play grunge in the early 2000s. Pearl Jam could've made an album in the early 2000s that sounded like their album Ten or that even sounded like Skin Yard or Mudhoney. If a song like "Everything Zen" or "Machinehead" was by Nirvana, then people probably would be calling those songs grunge. If "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "In Bloom" was by Bush then people probably would call those songs post-grunge. Bush just emerged really late. If Bush were from Seattle, formed in like 1987, released their first album in like 1989 on Sub Pop Records and became popular in like 1991 or 1992, then people probably would call Bush a grunge band and probably wouldn't call them a post-grunge band. If Stone Temple Pilots formed during the year when Bush formed, released their first album in like 1995 on a major label, and became popular in like 1995 or 1996, then people probably would call Stone Temple Pilots a post-grunge band and probably wouldn't call Stone Temple Pilots a grunge band. Bush's first 2 albums, Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase aren't post-grunge. Bush are more grunge than post-grunge. Maybe some of the stuff that Bush released after Razorblade Suitcase is post-grunge, but other than that, Bush are more grunge than post-grunge. I'm pretty sure that the reason why people call Bush post-grunge is because Bush formed in 1992, became popular after the death of Kurt Cobain and are from United Kingdom.

These songs are post-grunge:

Creed - With Arms Wide Open
Staind - It's Been Awhile
Staind - So Far Away
Nickelback - How You Remind Me
Creed - Higher
Creed - My Sacrifice
Nickelback - Someday
Three Days Grace - I Hate Everything About You

Bush's music (especially their albums Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase sound nothing like these songs. Post-grunge tends to have a very polished/clear sound. Grunge has a more fuzzy/raw sound, which Bush have (especially on Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase). Post-grunge doesn't sound very punk rockish and doesn't sound very metal either. The Bush song "Machinehead" sounds quite punk rockish. Post-grunge sounds very radio-friendly. Bush's albums Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase sound less radio-friendly than a lot of Pearl Jam's music. The Bush song "Insect Kin" does not sound radio-friendly at all. Also, commas go before citations, not after citations.

Use this: [[Post-grunge]],<ref>*insert citation here*</ref>

not this: [[Post-grunge]]<ref>*insert citation here*</ref>,

Statik N (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the grunge label on Bush really means a lot to you. I understand that they have grunge in them, they do, however, they fit more with the post-grunge bands during the mid 90s like Live, Candlebox and Collective Soul and nobody can't denied that. That is a fact. Bush came really late. People would go on and say that Grunge wasn't really a genre at all. Post-grunge in the other hand is a genre because a lot of it sounds the same or quite similar. Post-grunge bands have heavier songs too, Creed's Bullets, Nickelback's Never Again, and 3 Doors Down's Smack, so putting a song like Insect Kin doesn't make it grungier than it seems. I am sorry but Bush were more Post-grunge than Grunge. Bush were one of the first post-grunge bands, that is why they sound so similar to the original grunge bands. To me, I saw Bush as a post-grunge band, a derivative band. Not every grunge band needs to come from Seattle but they need to be underground in order to be considered Grunge after Kurt Cobain's death. You need a extremely underground dirty and raw sound and I didn't saw that on Bush Sixteen Stone or Bush Razorblade Suitcase. Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase are Post-grunge albums. Post-grunge means grunge after the Seattle scene. That is what it first meant before mainstream post-grunge acts like Creed and Nickelback started to come on the scene. Also, people called Bush a post-grunge act, a derivative act, that is what Bush are. I love Bush, they are one of my favorite bands, I own Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase but to me, I saw Bush as the beginning of the end for Grunge and the beginning for Post-Grunge. Take Care.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

If post-grunge is grunge after the death of Kurt Cobain, then Soundgarden's albums Down on the Upside and King Animal are post-grunge, Pearl Jam's album Vitalogy is post-grunge, Alice in Chains' self-titled album is post-grunge and Screaming Trees' album Dust is post-grunge. Also, Pearl Jam became popular with their first album. Not all grunge bands start off underground. Bush's first 2 albums totally are grunge. If they're post-grunge because "post-grunge is grunge after Kurt Cobain's death", then post-grunge is a subgenre of grunge, and people don't consider post-grunge a subgenre of grunge. I could edit the Wikipedia article for post-grunge and write with a source that post-grunge originally was a subgenre of grunge and was a label used on grunge bands that emerged a little bit before Kurt Cobain's death, during Kurt Cobain's death or after Kurt Cobain's death. Also, Soundgarden and Pearl Jam tend to sound less fuzzy/raw than the first 2 Bush albums. Remember that some grunge bands didn't start off underground. Pearl Jam got big with their debut album and so did Stone Temple Pilots. I got an idea. How about the genre fields on Bush song articles get removed unless there is a citation for a genre. This means that we can only add genres that have a citation otherwise there is no genre field. That can be a consensus due to the whole debate over the genre of the band Bush. There are some users who won't let anyone add a genre field to an article unless the genres have citations. I might clarify things more on the post-grunge by giving more info on what post-grunge means/is. That way, people won't get confused on why bands like Bush are called post-grunge when bands like Bush sound a lot like bands such as Nirvana and do not sound like bands such as Creed and Nickelback. Also, those songs you called "heavy post-grunge songs" are actually heavy metal/hard rock/alternative metal songs or something. Just because those songs are by post-grunge bands, doesn't automatically make them post-grunge. Nickelback have made metal songs before (eg: their song "Bottoms Up"). Eminem, who makes hip-hop music, could make a song that sounds like Cannibal Corpse and that would make the song death metal (which Cannibal Corpse play), not hip-hop. I'll add more info on the post-grunge article later. My computer has been kind of slow lately though. Statik N (talk) 00:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bush were post-grunge, they can also be grunge too but grunge was a special movement and Bush didn't fit in that movement. Bush were cleaner than most of the grunge bands that came from Seattle. As for the Bush not sounding like Nickelback or Creed, they kind of do. All three bands have baritone voices, all three bands follow the same loud-soft-loud dynamics, Bush are probably a little darker than both bands but all three bands can actually sound similar. Compare Swallowed to How You Remind Me to Higher. They all sound kind of similar, it's just the Bush song is more outdated because Bush came first than Nickelback and Creed. Also, the most successful song from Sixteen Stone was Glycerine and Glycerine was probably the softest song of the Sixteen Stone album. It was a ballad. Also, if you compare Comedown from Sixteen Stone to My Own Prison from Creed, Scott Stapp adds harsher vocals into the chorus than what Gavin does to Comedown and My Own Prison is post-grunge. If My Own Prison is post-grunge, then Comedown is definitely post-grunge. Also, keep in mind that a genre changes overtime. A genre gets more mainstream sounding throughout the years, just look at glam metal, the first glam metal albums were heavier than the ones that came after. Same thing for post-grunge, the first post-grunge albums are heavier than the ones that came after. As for Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains and Soundgarden being post-grunge because of Kurt death, just no. The reason is why because those bands were already formed before Kurt passed away. They were mainstream before Kurt passed away. Bush in the other hand got popular after Kurt's death. Bush are a post-grunge band and will always be remembered for that band that was a derivative of Nirvana, kind of how people remembered Creed for being a derivative of Pearl Jam. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

I didn't say that Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden became post-grunge after Kurt Cobain's death, I'm saying that if all grunge music that came out Kurt Cobain's death is post-grunge, then that makes the grunge stuff that Alice in Chains, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden all released post-grunge. There are Pearl Jam songs that sound a lot more radio-friendly than Bush. Also, Bush sound more raw and fuzzy than Nickelback and Creed while Nickelback and Creed use much more melodic, more poppy, more clear sounds. The stuff I've heard on Razorblade Suitcase sounds like an album Nirvana would've made. Sixteen Stone (except for "Glycerine") sounds a lot like Nirvana. Also, if Sixteen Stone was by Nirvana, then the album would be called grunge instead of post-grunge, including the song "Glycerine". If Nevermind was by Bush then the album would be called post-grunge. I really don't understand how Bush sound like Nickelback, Three Days Grace, Creed, 3 Doors Down, etc. Bush sound way more fuzzy and raw like Nirvana. Also, some post-grunge songs will have acoustic guitars played even when distorted electric guitars are played (which Bush don't do). Also, some post-grunge vocalists sound like grunge vocalists. For example, Scott Stapp sounds like Eddie Vedder and I think the vocalist of Puddle of Mudd's vocals have been compared to Kurt Cobain's vocals. Baritone vocals don't necessarily make a band post-grunge. Also, Chad from Nickelback's vocals sound kind of like Kurt Cobain's vocals. If Bush were from Seattle, formed in like 1987, released their debut album in like 1989 on Sub Pop Records and became popular in like 1991 or 1992, people would call Bush grunge. The fact that Bush are from United Kingdom and emerged late to the mainstream grunge genre is probably why they got called post-grunge. Also, Bush tend to use song titles that are more similar to song titles by grunge bands than song titles by post-grunge bands. For example, "Testoserone", "Body" and "Greedy Fly" sound more like grunge song titles than post-grunge song titles. Nirvana have used song titles like "School", "Tourrette's", "Breed" and "Dumb". Nickelback and Staind use song titles like "How You Remind Me", "Someday", "It's Been Awhile" and "So Far Away". Even if Bush are post-grunge, they still are grunge and if they're post-grunge, then some post-grunge can be a subgenre of grunge. Bush's first 2 albums really sound more like Nirvana than bands like Nickelback, Creed and even the band Live. Also, Creed sound like a less classic rockish, more poppy version of Pearl Jam while Bush (especially their first 2 albums) simply sound totally like Nirvana. Also, some grunge songs are pretty radio-friendly or even poppy. Eg: "In Bloom" by Nirvana, "Even Flow" by Pearl Jam, "Black Hole Sun" by Soundgarden and "Plush" by Stone Temple Pilots. Statik N (talk) 03:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you were being sarcastic of Pearl Jam, Soundgarden and Alice In Chains albums being post-grunge after Kurt Cobain's death but I pointed that out because I wanted to show you the reasons why those bands are still considered grunge and not fully Bush. Bush are always going to be remembered for being that post-grunge band that was a derivative. As for the Creed being poppier than Pearl Jam, it's true but keep in mind that My Own Prison is Creed's darkest album and it has it's darkest moments that can be compared to some songs from Pearl Jam's Ten. You are probably thinking that post-grunge started with Nickelback and Creed when the reality it started with bands like Bush, Candlebox, Live and Collective Soul. It also started by a few more but I'm not naming them. A genre changes over time, it gets poppier. Also, having songs like Greedy Fly doesn't make it grungier than it seems, it has nothing to do with being grunge or not. Bush belong more with bands like Candlebox, Live and Collective Soul, if your into Bush, you are probably would be into those bands too. I enjoy those bands too. Bush was the first wave movement of post-grunge and Bush are one of the best bands ever. I know one of the best bands ever is a opinion but I'm just pointing that out because I like them. Take Care. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

To me, Bush sound a lot like Nirvana. In fact, I think Bush's music has been compared to Nirvana's music and I think Bush have been viewed as "Nirvana ripoffs". Even if they're post-grunge, Bush still are grunge (at least their first 2 albums are). Just letting you know, post-grunge originally was a label used almost pejoratively towards grunge bands that emerged late to the mainstream grunge scene. Bands labelled almost pejoratively as post-grunge tend to be seen as bands that "are trying to be like Nirvana, Pearl Jam, etc. and are jumping on the grunge bandwagon". If these bands arrived early to the mainstream grunge or even arrived early to the grunge scene as a whole, they probably wouldn't have been labelled as post-grunge and probably instead would have been labelled as grunge.

Statik N (talk) 23:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the whole point. Look at Creed, they were being called Pearl Jam ripoffs. Creed to Pearl Jam is what Bush was to Nirvana. It's not that the bands were bad, no, they are pretty good according to me and you but people and critics always complained about the bands sounding like the grunge bands. Bush sounds a lot like Nirvana, it's true but they release their first album after Kurt passed away and the grunge scene decided to waned. If My Own Prison was released in 1992 and if Creed were from Seattle, it would had easily been labeled as Grunge. Same thing with Bush, I agree with you but Post-grunge bands are seem to have lack originality of themselves according to critics and grunge fans and are band wagoners. This is why Bush is called post-grunge, more post-grunge than what grunge is. Grunge was a specific time and movement, Creed sounds more like Pearl Jam than let's say Alice In Chains or Green River but the reason why Alice In Chains and Green River are called Grunge is because they both came from Seattle and both bands came around the late 80s in the underground scene. Creed didn't, Post-grunge was already mainstream by the time Creed hit in 1997 with My Own Prison. Bush sounds closer to Nirvana than any other grunge band but they are not called grunge because they didn't came from Seattle, they released their first album too late and they didn't started when grunge was a underground scene. The only way for Bush to be considered grunge was if they came from Seattle or if they were underground and never achieve any mainstream success or signed to major record labels, although, grunge bands did sign to major record labels, the majority of the first ones that came from the 80s didn't and people seem to share more with that. Take care. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

some edits you made

Don't remove the thing about Bush on the grunge article. It all is sourced. Bush are considered a grunge band. Being post-grunge doesn't mean they can't be grunge. The fact that they arrived late and are from United Kingdom doesn't mean they can't be grunge. Stone Temple Pilots probably were accused of "jumping on the grunge bandwagon" and Stone Temple Pilots are not from Seattle. However, Stone Temple Pilots are considered grunge and do play grunge. Don't removed sourced content. That's considered vandalism. A band can be both grunge and post-grunge. Also, on the post-grunge article, there's a source (About.com) that says that the post-grunge label originally was used almost pejoratively on grunge bands that arrived late and had the sound of bands such as Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Alice in Chains, and Soundgarden. Therefore, post-grunge was originally a subgenre of grunge; it just was grunge that arrived late. Remember, Candlebox are from Seattle but they were called post-grunge because they arrived late. If they arrived early, they probably wouldn't be called post-grunge. According to the About.com source, post-grunge changed in the late 1990s. Don't remove sourced content. That's considered vandalism. Vandalism can lead you to being blocked from editing. Also, if you're going to add post-grunge to the Razorblade Suitcase article, include a citation. Alternative rock and grunge both have citations on the Razorblade Suitcase article. Statik N (talk) 05:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, anyways, you said that post-grunge was originally a subgenre of grunge, post-grunge was always a derivative of grunge. The first post-grunge bands were a derivative of grunge, Bush was a derivative of Nirvana. Post-grunge always was a derivative. The goal for grunge was that it didn't sounded like anything, grunge bands don't sound much like one another but Bush in the other hand sounded completely like Nirvana. Bush was very similar to Nirvana and grunge bands according to their own fans supposed to sound different from one another, Bush didn't, they sounded like a derivative of Nirvana. Also, you deleted my Bush Sixteen Stone being a importance of post-grunge and that had a source. I thought it fit really well on Sixteen Stone.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2016 (UTC) )[reply]

Bush still are grunge. Many people probably thought that Stone Temple Pilots were trying to be like Pearl Jam. Also, in the song "Creep", Stone Temple Pilots sound kind of like Nirvana. According to About.com, post-grunge was originally a grunge subgenre. According to About.com, post-grunge did morph in the late 1990s. Bush were just influenced by Nirvana. But Gavin Rossdale was also influenced by Fugazi (punk rock band) and The Jesus Lizard (noise rock band). Grunge bands don't need to stand out. Some grunge bands sound like each other. Also, I already put on the post-grunge article that Sixteen Stone went 6x platinum, so that had something to do with writing about post-grunge's popularity. Also, I re-added one of your edits with the Stereogum source. Statik N (talk) 04:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have received 3 prior blocks for genre warring, and a more recent final warning from me about it. Today, you decided to remove a sourced statement related to genre. You've been given far too many chances on this. You have been blocked for 3 months. Sergecross73 msg me 01:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought that the genre didn't fit the band at all and decided to erase it, sorry, should had thought better. Anyways, why 3 months? 3 months is massively overrated, I can understand for 5 days but three months, really? It's definitely going to be for that long, besides, I wasn't really editing a lot of things this last past few days. Sorry. My mistake. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 04:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is your fourth block about the same thing. Blocks get successively longer, especially when about the same thing.
Because you knew better. The content was sourced. The exact edit was discussed on the talk page, and you knew there was no consensus for the change. You made the change without any further discussion. Not even an edit summary. That's a very bad combination. Sergecross73 msg me 10:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mikeis1996. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mikeis1996. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. -- ferret (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet of Strangeguy91, how and why?

First of all my account was created almost four years ago. That other user called Strangerguy91 or something like that had his account created much later than that. I been in Wikipedia for almost 4 years. Also, I was blocked because a user called Statik N has this habit of labeling a band grunge when in reality they are not grunge. I dislike the way how he edit things. I shouldn't be blocked for saying something like the British band Bush instead of saying, the British grunge band Bush. It's unfair to call Bush a grunge band because they are not label as a term like that. They are label as a rock band, they do more than just grunge, they do post-grunge and alternative rock. Statik N just wants his personal opinions to matter the most. That is unfair. ( Mikeis1996 (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

There are multiple things you do that give you away that you are the same person in a pretty obvious way, regardless of which account was created first or which one is oldest. I won't mention them all, since identifying them would only aid you in trying to break the rules and make more illegitimate accounts, but your weird obsession with post-grunge and Statik are definitely part of it. Please stop creating accounts, or you will continue to be blocked. And pages will continue to be protected. Sergecross73 msg me 04:28, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]