User talk:Neon white/Archive2

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of emo artists

Might I respectfully suggest that you be a little less combative when responding on this AFD to comments with which you don't agree? Stifle (talk) 10:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No you may not, i stated facts about policy and nothing more. --neonwhite user page talk 22:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

hi neon white, why are you going to this page again when that fact has been there for well over 3 months, please do not edit it again. thank you.

I have not edited the page since the afd was closed. Check the history. --neonwhite user page talk 12:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Chantal Claret's page - Why are you all of a sudden choosing to contest facts that have already been established on the page months ago that you had already accepted? why are you all of a sudden choosing to "watch dog" this page again, please leave it alone once and for all, nothing has changed about it, so please leave it alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.130.194 (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The facts haven't been 'established' they have been unsourced for sometime if that's what you mean and any editor can remove unsourced text from an article especially one about a living person. Please remain civil. Do not try to inform other editors what pages they can and can't edit. Any editor can edit any page. --neonwhite user page talk 00:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But why are you choosing NOW to suddenly "EDIT" as you call it this page again hen you so politely left it alone for three months with the same things listed that you are trying to remove? what got into you again? that you have to bully this page once again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.130.194 (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it was done recently is irrelevant. There is no rules on when you can and can't edit a page as there are no rules regarding who can edit a page. --neonwhite user page talk 16:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

YES, but WHY are you all of a sudden choosing to POLICE this page when you so kindly left it alone for so long the way it was, now you are attacking it again with your self proclaimed "rules". Can't you leave it the way it was a few months ago after you butchered it to begin with? Just leave it alone and go pick on something else. Please. what is your personal issue with this page? You are the ONLY person who has a problem with it the way it was and everyone else is trying to fix it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.11.110.99 (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeated any editor can edit any page that needs work. I did not invent wikipedia policy. I was not involved in it whatsoever. The page needs cleaning up so it will be done. --neonwhite user page talk 14:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You are not answering the the question with why you are OBSESSED with watchdogging this specific page and all of a sudden decided to come back to it after so kindly leaving it alone for months. Please own up to your true intentions they seem malicious almost and uncalled for, not very wikipedia like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.243.51.253 (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't answer pointless and irrelevant questions. My watchlist includes literally hundreds of pages that are prone to vandalism. This is just one of them. --neonwhite user page talk 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Diana/Institute of Peace/Consensus?

I'm writing here because I really don't want to inflame the issue at the AN/I discussion but, would still like clarification. I'm wondering why you feel that consensus wasn't reached and/or why you feel that I was claiming a false consensus and being uncivil. Most (if not all) of my edit history and comments at places like AN/I have been very civil and I try to encourage others to do the same so if I've created some kind of problem I'd like to know so that I can try and correct whatever behaviour you feel is wrong. Thank you very much. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it needs more discussion, you can't announce a consensus after only a small discussion during the last few days. There are obviously still parties that are not in agreement so i don't see a consensus on how this info should be presented. Comments about civility weren't specifically aimed at any particular editor just a general reminder that the preferred action should be discuss these things on the talk and involve all, remembering that consensus can be challenged and refined at any time. You post suggested that you'd accepted a decision and were unwilling to entertaining any change to that. I apologise if have read your comments wrongly. --neonwhite user page talk 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it came across that way. I tried to look at all the evidence in multiple sets of discussions and yeah I suppose I came to a determination that consensus had been reached based on there only being 1 user that disagreed. (majority rule sort of thing). I think it was the "declaring a false" consensus thing that through me off. I'm still a bit raw at this and took it a bit personally. For that I apologise. Not sure what is actually going to happen at this point with the new stuff I found yesterday before I left the computer and this being the first page on my watchlist needing attention I haven't looked anywhere else yet. Thank you for your honest opinions and willingness to discuss things in a meaningful and civil way. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Neon & Jasynnash2, If you could do the write-up (thin content) about the institute and being mentioned in the legacy section with the link to the new article, then it is fine, I will involve with the new article. The info currently available about the institute is only sufficient it is meged with the Diana article. Otherwise as Neon mentioned on the ANI discussion, the chances of the new article being survived on a afd debate is questionable at this stage.Bermudatriangle (talk) 14:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say a merge would be the most likely result of an afd. I can't really find much info on it. --neonwhite user page talk 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Not going to turn this user's talkpage into a battleground but, my comment to Neon is for neon to respond to. If it means you will work constructively on improving wikipedia as a whole than I will try to add something to the legacy section. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Princess Diana "thing"

Hi, I went ahead and added a bit into the legacy section as agreed with Bermudatriangle. I've tried to make sure it isn't as "spammy" as before and not copyvio like the last bit talking about the Institute appears to have been (see edit summaries). I'm still not 100% convinced it belongs but, want the matter to come to a close. Could you have a look and let me have your opinion. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Added more details (Legacy section) Diana, Princess of Wales

I have added some more details with reference as the article "(Sri Lanka)Princess Diana Institue of Peace" was speedily deleted. I am expecting your input there.Bermudatriangle (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it need that many citations? As long as everyone agrees with the content it should work. --neonwhite user page talk 00:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reduced into a few citations.Bermudatriangle (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

your message

Hmm?.. Are you sure you have the right person? Bobisbob (talk) 14:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You are correct, this meant for someone else. --neonwhite user page talk 20:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of vandalism

This is a serious accusation and you are far to ready to accuse people of vandalism when you don't like their edits. The definition of vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." That's what you've accused me of, and I would like you to either prove it or retract it, taking into account of course my many edits reverting real vandalism. I also disagree with you about the consensus you claimed existed (and which clearly does not exist now). As for notability, I know the guidelines say it does not directly limit article content (not that it does not limit article content), but that can easily be misunderstood (and I think will be rewritten to make it clearer what is meant).--Doug Weller (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed fully, there are several users whom Neon is currently accusing of vandalism, using fake accounts, bad intent & more. Such accusations should not be the immediate fallback when edits are not to one's liking.(98.212.132.208 (talk) 05:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC))

i apologize for that, but your edits did compromise the article by removing cited text with a misguided reason given in the edit summary and you aided the edit waring on this article. i have already explained the difficulties with this article so there is no need to repeat it. I think the guidelines are perfectly clear on this matter. The consensus does exist, other editors were consulted on the changes. I considered the edit waring, which the editors in question have already been warned about (User_talk:Bermudatriangle), to be disruptive to the article.. You just happened to get caught in the crossfire and made edits which didnt really help the situation. --neonwhite user page talk 20:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Work for Wikipedia?

I have seen several instances of you accusing other users of vandalism and issuing warnings. Could you please confirm that you work for wikipedia? There are malicious children who come on the site from time to time and try to assume authority over other users. I assume that this isn't the case with you but one can never be too cautious. Please provide some evidence of your authority here on the site? (98.212.132.208 (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

WP:3O

Hey. I saw you added two different articles to the third opinion page. Just as a heads-up: when adding something to the 3O page, we ask people to sign with five tildes (~~~~~) so only the timestamp shows up. This helps to maintain neutrality when someone gives an opinion on a article. Thanks! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 11:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mickey Modelle

Hi there. You are, of course, correct in attributing the deletion of this page, which took place just over a year ago, to me. The reason is quite straightforward. As written, there was no assertion of qualification under WP:MUSIC.

I see your comment in my talkpage, and have no reason to dispute it; but when assessing an article for deletion then the decision is made only on the basis of the written text. In the article there was no mention of any chart entries, and indeed the only factual comment at all is that the person in question is a DJ. If you wish to expand the article to qualify under WP:MUSIC then please let me know, and I will restore it; but as it stands, it does not qualify.

One more thing; I hope you will not mind my saying, but it is better if you insert new sections in a talkpage at the bottom, not at the top. I have moved the comment you inserted in my page to the correct place. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have looked again at the article. The text says, in its entirety, "Mickey Modelle is is one of probably the best Irish Djs in the world" and is followed by an image. As I said, I am happy to restore the article if you wish to improve it. But it does not, repeat not, mention chart hits in its deleted form; nor indeed, in its first created form, which is almost identical. I take your point on the diffs, and do not in any way argue with them; but they were not contained in the article. Do you wish me to restore the article so that you can include them? I only emphasize this point because if I restore it and nothing changes it will be removed again by the first admin to see it! Please, when you answer, do not try to persuade me that the gentleman is notable; I concede that. But the article must say so. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 19:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The article, as named, does not list you as either creator or a contributor. Can you confirm the exact spelling of the name? And the exact title of the article? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You may, perhaps, care to look at the article entitled Micky Modelle (note spelling of first name) which still exists, and with which I have not been involved. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 11:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

List of emo artists

Hi there. I wonder if you'd consider reverting yourself here; vandalism had already been removed by other users and all but two of the additions you removed were properly sourced. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

When i checked the diffs there was still alot of content that had not been restored (16 missing entries) so reverting to the last good version seemed to best solution. My edit didn't actually remove any entries, it only restored entries as you can see on the diff you provided above. --neonwhite user page talk 17:51, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinks

i will leave it as it is... --Moraleh (talk) 23:48, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusation

Try to respond in your own talk page. On what basis you accused me that I am not assuming good faith? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt an accusation it was a reminder to remain civil. The diff is here [1]. These kinds of accusations are inappropriate behaviour. Editors are required to remain civil when commenting on an afd and should comment on the article not other editors. --neonwhite user page talk 16:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusing someone of being POV pusher, yeah agree my tone of language needed a change. I would have used "pro-America POV pushing" rather than "pro-America POV pusher". Calling someone "pro-America POV pusher" was inappropriate. I agree with this. But my rest of comment are not any policy violation. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

You declared the nomination to be in bad faith which is the opposite of assuming good faith, then accused the nominator of being a 'pro-America POV pusher' and 'pro-America misinformation mongering' this is simply not civil behaviour and also will likely lead to your comments being ignored. --neonwhite user page talk 16:42, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, thanks for the clarification. Will take care of this from now. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:44, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If you evidence that this editor has bias then include it but User:Sceptre is a well respected editor that has a lot of experience with afds and would not nominate an article for deletion without good reason --neonwhite user page talk 16:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I strikethough the comments [2]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

OKAY --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Paramore

It's reliable. It comes from their official website and it sais the band is alternative rock.And do you really think the band would post that on their website if that was wrong. --Freedom (song) (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on second or third party verifiable sources (see WP:V. Personal websites are not verifiable and are classed as self published sources and we dont use them --neonwhite user page talk 16:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It also sais the band is alternative rock [3]. Their are also many other sources. And you are saying that if the band calls themself alternative rock it's not importent. That's stupid and you know it. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Also a self published site and yes the band is not a reliable sources. Please read WP:V for info on what sources are appropriate. Please be warned any further disruptive edits and personal attacks will result in a final warning. The talk page is the place to discuss any major edits to these pages. --neonwhite user page talk 17:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MP3.com calls Paramore an alternative rock band. MP3 is also not a self published site so yes they are alternative rock. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

MP3.com calls Paramore an alternative rock band. MP3 is also not a self published site so yes they are alternative rock.Paramore AOL music says the band is alternative rock band. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not. I can copy the text here. There is no use of the word alternative. Categorizations on music sites or stores are not considered a reliable source for genres. If you like you can ask on the reliable sources noticeboard whether the sources are appropriate however the current sourced genres should not be changed.

Pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN, when lead singer Hayley Williams met brothers Josh and Zac Farro (guitar and drums, respectively) after moving into town from Mississippi. The two had a young band that the burgeoning singer was soon asked to join. Opening Williams' 13-year-old eyes to the likes of U2, the Cure, Sparta, and Failure, the teenagers began performing together under the name Paramore following the addition of Jason Bynum on rhythm guitar and Jeremy Davis on bass. Local hangouts and a school talent show helped the young bandmembers hone their chops before at last moving up to gigs at area rock clubs. The quintet's sweet melodies and earnest charisma eventually caught the attention of Florida's Fueled by Ramen label, which signed the band in April 2005. Working with James Wisner (Dashboard Confessional, Underoath) and Mike Green (Yellowcard, the Black Maria), Paramore recorded their full-length debut, All We Know Is Falling. The album was issued in late July 2005, and Paramore jumped quickly into their van to support it. In addition to a spot on New Jersey's Bamboozle Festival and multiple Warped Tour dates, they also played shows with bands like Simple Plan and Straylight Run. Hunter Lamb replaced Bynum on guitar in December 2005; time was spent in the early part of the next year on dates with Halifax, So They Say, and Bayside. Similar to many of their musical peers, summer 2006 was then passed back on the annual Warped Tour circuit. ~ Corey Apar, All Music Guide --neonwhite user page talk 17:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

AllMusicGuide ain't a reliable source and Answers.com calls them rock. First it's many sources that sais the album is alternative rock and many that sais them are Punk pop. Can't we just add alternative rock and Punk pop. Their are sources for both the genres. Lets add alternative rock and i wont take away Punk pop okay. They are both pop rock and alternative rock and the only reason i don't think they are pop rock is that lostprophets have many more popish songs and they are called alternative rock. Get Underground calls them rock. Starpulse calls them rock. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Allmusic guide is reliable, it is written by music journalists. Answers.com is self-published and not relaible. Neither starpulse nor getunderground.com have any reputation. If there are reliable second party sources then use them. The sourced genres are on the main page. Pop-rock, power pop and emo. As album and single genres are hard to source, these are usually used. --neonwhite user page talk 17:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and i'm going to stop taking away the pop rock genre even if i think it's wrong if you leave everything as it is now in the infoboks. --Freedom (song) (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Best to wait for other user input on the talk page. --neonwhite user page talk 17:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as:

1. the material used is relevant to their notability;
2. it is not contentious;
3. it is not unduly self-serving;
4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Then shouldn't alternative rock from their official homepage be a good source. --Freedom (song) (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that it is self-serving (it will help them gain a alternative rock-oriented fan-base) and, considering that reliable sources disagree, it is also contentious. indopug (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that it is definetly self-serving, they are mainstream but still an independant band and indie rock is often mislabled as alt rock, they overlap. However, it cannot be said to be 'relevant to their notability'. The only reason self published sources are allowed in some cases is when there is little second or third party info available on a subject and even then more reliable sourcing is always prefered. This isn't the case with this subject as there are already genres sourced my the NYTimes, NME, allmusicguide etc. --neonwhite user page talk 14:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm taking away the pop rock genre because on MP3.com they call all the artist Rock/pop they even called metallica it check it out and one other thing is they never listed pop rock as a genre it was just on the text. I'm not taking it of straight away because you'll probably find a source that i'm wrong. --Freedom (song) (talk) 16:12, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It calls them pop/rock which is the same as pop-rock and the citation is sourced from allmusicguide not mp3.com. Do not remove cited content. --neonwhite user page talk 21:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Award-winning

Yes, but introducing it in the lead sentence even before the reader learns what Paramore is, is POV. For eg: "Paramore is an award-winning American rock band" tells the reader that the band won an award even before he finds what Paramore is, a band. By all means mention the Grammy nom later in the lead. You might want to see a similar argument here. indopug (talk) 14:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Where I Belong

There's a country singer who released an album with this name. Do you think that instead I could rewrite this page to be about the album, with a hatnote pointing to the album containing the Beach Boys song? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert notice

Hi there. I just wanted to call your attention to this thread on the Wikiquette alerts page. I do not think your comments were particularly incivil, but Something X was apparently offended anyway, so you could try toning it down. I agree with you about the sources, and my recommendation would be to just retain composure and wait it out. Thanks, and happy wiki-ing! --Jaysweet (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Policy does not require pleasantries. I keep to the point. In my opinion, User:Something X's problem probably has nothing to do with the comments but more to do with not being able to impose his/her POV on this article. --neon white talk 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, and I think I made it pretty clear in my response to Something X that I didn't think you'd done anything wrong. I was just saying that you may wish to tone it down anyway, not because you have to, but because you'll be less likely to have to deal with Wikiquette reports and other nonsense filed by someone with hurt feelings. But obviously it's your call. Best of luck, and oh, while it hasn't come to it yet, should you have difficulty reaching consensus on this issue, please mind the WP:3RR rule and try not to edit war. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I made no personal attacks and directed no personal comments at any editor at all. I can't see anything whatsoever that was incivil. This has been decided by a previous consensus and not much has changed since but i agree that it will probably be sorted out in time, if not by me by other editors. --neon white talk 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Civility is not optional. Particularly when you're warning a user about some sort of misconduct, there are ways of saying the same message in a less impolite or incivil way. Eg; "A more appropriate forum to express your concerns would be RSN - please take them there if you feel yours have any merit."

I read your responses. I'm pretty sure SomethingX considers your 'opinion' unwanted and even more of an attack in the context in which you expressed it, regardless of what you, me, or Jaysweet may think in terms of the merits of your opinion. Avoid inflaming a dispute further - you end up wasting more time over it when you do, than if you took a bit of time to cool off and choose your words more wisely. And no, there's no abuse of process in the WQA, and it's likely you'll end up slowly being dragged through each step of the dispute resolution process if you don't take care in the future, and avoid it, and edit-warring too. I'm assuming the message has sunk in by the time you read this, so I'm closing the WQA as resolved, and hopefully the matter ends here. Regards - Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

MP3.com

I've seen the history of the page and before you yoused mp3.com as a source for pop rock. Why isn't mp3.com reliable give me the answear or i'm changing it back. AllMusicGuide doesn't call paramore pop rock stop lying. And yeah pop rock at the start og the biography but they do that on all the articles they even call Linkin Park Old-school hip-hop and classic rock at the start of the article. My point is if it's not listed at the genre section on the article they don't say they are pop rock, if they did have pop rock on the genre section i would leave it alone. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The source used was actually allmusicguide, the text at mp3.com is a straight copy from allmusicguide (correctly attributed), that is the only reason it was acceptable. The source wasnt mp3.com or it would have been rejected as there is no indication that it is verifiable whereas allmusicguide is accepted because it has an editorial process. Allmusicguide clearly calls pop rock, i have posted the quote several times, it is easily verifiable. "The energetic, spunky pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN..." However we cannot use classifications and categories from online music stores as they are simply a means to classify their products and cannot be considered an attempt to accurately describe an artists genre. --neon white talk 16:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't they add pop rock on the genre section if they are pop rock idiot. I think you just started a edit war with me. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I dont work at mp3.com, all i know is that music store categorizations are not considered a reliable source. --neon white talk 22:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

mp3.com may not be a reliable source but still allmusic doesn't call paramore pop/rock. This is the start for the Linkin Park page on allmusic Old-school hip-hop, traditional classic rock. They don't add that in the genre section but theyAlterna tive Metal, Post-Grunge and Rap-Rock. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The source is clear. Ignoring it wont make it change. --neon white talk 14:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

If they where poprock they would have added it in the genre section. It ain't hard to understand. Have you ever thought that they call them poprock because of punk-pop which is a pop genre and emo which is a rock genre. It ain't that hard. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with it. The verifiable source is Cory apar's bio, this is what is being cited. Pop rock is a broad genre of music. --neon white talk 14:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You still don't get what i'm trying to say to you. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You havent said anything new, just contined denial that this sentence exists. "The energetic, spunky pop/rock outfit Paramore began humbly enough in Franklin, TN..." It's verging on refusal to get the point. It;s there. It's not invisible and it's published in several verifiable sources. It complies with policy. --neon white talk 15:11, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You are the one repeating, they don't add pop rock in the genre section. --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Before we get to 3r

I know you advocate the enlisting of My Chemical Romance as emo, however I'd like to point you towards the music the band performs and not towards the fashions of the clothing they wear. The content of the groups lyrics, the style of guitar and drums and general songwriting i contrary to the description of Emo. It's a broadly considered misconception, as acknowledged by the band based on the fashions they used to wear (and they don't even wear now, if you look at recent photos of the band), however the band asserts that they're not emo, insisting their stance is that of life preservation. To continue to list that the group is "emo" perpetuates the myth on what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article, not an opinion board. I'm going to remove Emo, and would ask that you read through some of the archived information and discussions as to why emo was removed. What I've said just now is a condesned summary of what it says, but I would ask that if you disagree with me, simply address a strawpoll or sampling of thosee who're actually aware of what emo music is and then make your assessment, but please respond to me diretly before making any changes to the article again. --rm 'w avu 13:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Non of that is relevant. Wikipedia is based on the views of verifiable sources not on personal opinions or interpretations. It is not 'a broadly considered misconception'. It is cited by multiple sources including Rolling Stone, MTV, NME and allmusicguide and was decided by consensus. We know why it was removed and it violated wikipedia policy not to mention the purpose of an encyclopedia. This has been rectified by experienced editors who understand policy. Warnings will be given is you continue to remove it. --neon white talk 15:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For you to tote that correctness is irrelavent, then contributing to an encyclopedia is not the correct forum, and in fact a soapbox would be the more appropriate place to do this. Now, with regards to your reference to the "referenced" section of the article, these references either make no reference to the band as being emo [4], or they make no mention of the band at all. The ONE that makes mention of emo (MTV) refers to the band as "punk-emo" and refers only to their debut release, which is seldom in print and hardly a fair representation of the group's musical style, considering their second album "made" them, and their third made them commercially successful. The other MTV article cites that the group came out of the punk/emo/post hardcore scene. Now specifically, I came out of a graphic design scene after years of working in the field, however I now don't do any work in the field. AMG has a listing of five musical styles, of which Emo is the last. I'll also mention that they mis-spell Mikey Way's surname, directly after getting Gerard's correct. AMG is a notoriously sketchy source. The Rolling Stone article doesn't refer to the band as Emo, it refers to them as sad-scary punk, but realises the similarity in some ways to emo, in that it "lives up to emo's unspoken promise: that sometimes the most miserable songs are also the easiest ones to sing along with."[5] Meanwhile, reference #3 is completely eroneous, inaccurate, especially considering it states that Way called their music emo (or "what-else-ya-got-emo") whereas he's only ever defended against the Emo label, so it's inaccurate, and the source itself is an advertisement for beer, and makes no reference whatsoever to My Chemical Romance, musical styles or Gerard Way, a. Now, if you start bringing forward actually reliable sources (of these, only Rolling Stone is something I'd consider reliable, considering their scrutiny in fact checking, but the others are ludicrous or nn-existent, and that doesn't even prove anything either). Another thing, please don't threaten to post warnings onto my page. I'm not an inexperienced editor nor someone here to disrupt the matter, I'm trying to allow accuracy to take prevalence over frivolity. You state there's a consensus to place emo back onto the page, but I fail to see where any regular editor but yourself supports the decision, nor do I find any verifiable information to support the matter either. With all of this in mind, I'm removing it again and would ask the ourtesy of waiting to provide ample support before restoring it. --rm 'w avu 11:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The article only contains a handful of the sources available. The rest are on the talk page. We have Rolling Stone, MTV, NME, Village Voice, daily mail, the telegraph and other major newspapers and music magazines. That's more than enough. All music guide is fine as a source and is often quited by reliable publications. However as i pointed out on the talk page, the source, in fact, does not back up that fact and should not be used. Removeing material that is both verfiable and there by consensus (seen here Talk:My Chemical Romance#The sources that say that MCR are emo are not trustworthy without any discussion based soley on a personal point of view is disruptive and warnings are perfectly acceptable for this behavior. Please use the talk page in future. --neon white talk 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If this article only has a handful, why are they all crap ones? The Daily and the tele are both articles about hannah bond and not written by music writers, but by tabloid journalists, no exactly what is broadly accepted as a reliable source, and certainly not for the purposes of defining and shaping an encyclopedia article. As I pointed out on the talk page over there, NME makes no such allusions that the band is Emo. The Village Voice also doesn't have band pages, just reviews. Robert Christgau called their second album a dud, but didn't review it, nor make any ocmment on its style. VV's Sean Howe, who often reviews rock albums, refers to the band as having "punk-emo peers", while maintaining that the band's music is rock. VV's Tom Breihan, one who most commonly writes about rap and hip hop and has only written, from what I can find, three reviews outside of that genre. One of these was for the black parade parformed live and in that live review he states the band is "emo-arena rock", which is an oxymoron anyway. He also has the audacity in his review to comment how his time was wasted, alluding to preference to being in an urban arena. This, to me, was the most ardent supporter of teh band being emo from the reference you turned me to. And it's not from a reliable source because the guy doesn't know black from white when it comes to anything outside of hip hop. Though on one hand we need to reach consensus, it's important to provide the truth. Music's not a hard science, but there are some basic rules about it all, and based on these, MCR is not emo and should not be listed sa such. If they were, then why then would they not be listed on the Emo page at all? They're arguably more successful than any other band inthe "current" emo artists section. --rm 'w avu 09:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

student lounge

student lounge has recently been rescued, you may wish to review your vote at the deletion debate as new sourcing and copy editing has taken place.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Cuba?

Are you really pro-Cuba? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this about an article? I don't recall editing an article about that subject. --neon white talk 16:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not talking about any article. Just out of curiosity because I saw a userbox like this in your userpage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Larkin_Grimm

Hi. Your counterpoint comments offer an insight into your view of Notability, but don't do much when the unrelated admin does the tally. I think this is one of those areas where people are allowed to have a difference of opinion on what's notable. Mattnad (talk) 17:12, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what the point of this comment is, afd pages are for the discussion not here. --neon white talk 13:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Proof that Paramore are aternative rock

Well there's no need for me to provide research as it is written on this very site if you read the Wikipedia article (with references!) on alternative rock, you will see that it is punk based and derives from punk music!!!--Seán Travers (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Seán Travers

Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. Read WP:NOR. --neon white talk 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Harassment

I'm reporting you to AIN for not heeding my warning about not posting to my talk page again, for personal attacks and for harassment. Groupthink (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikiquette Alert notice

Hello! Please be aware that Groupthink (talk · contribs) has created a Wikiquette Alert involving you here. Thanks! --Jaysweet (talk) 14:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Neon -- would you consider as a compromise if you stayed off Groupthink's talk page and he/she stayed off of your talk page? I sometimes have to make this request to editors I don't get along with, and frankly the template-warring you guys were doing is not helpful. I know your initial edit-warring template was issued in good faith, but the exchange rapidly degenerated and I don't feel it is productive at this point. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough but the original warning about edit warring was valid but his retaliatory use of templates was not civil. --neon white talk 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but it's sort of hard for me to tell exactly where the wheels came off in that discussion. The two of you were both reverting each other, so one could make an argument that he wasn't entirely wrong to warn you for edit warring (and yes, I recognize you are trying to protect BLP so may not be subject to 3RR anyway), but in context it did seem a bit bad faith. Anyway, after that the whole thing escalates so fast that it's hard to tell who is being uncivil to whom! :D

In general, if somebody templates me in a way that I find to be in bad faith, I just remove it and ignore it. I figure it's their problem. hehehe.

Anyway, I will mark the Wikiquette alert as resolved for now. Thanks very much!! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Note the edit warring and reverting did not begin with my edits it began long before i was involved with the article and has been going on for months it seems. Thank you. --neon white talk 21:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

It's not really a blatant BLP violation because it's heavily sourced. As this is the subject of the dispute, m:The Wrong Version applies; the other user doesn't want it reverted. Undoing a revision would be taking sides (if it was unsourced, I'd hae no hesitation, but it is). Please wait until the dispute is resolved. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 15:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Black Parade article

Hello, I was wondering if I could ask for your assisstance. I am looking to submit The Black Parade article for another Good Article nomination but would like to know your thoughts on the article beforehand. I would like to know if there is anything you could see that needed improvement or perhaps any additions you would like to make before I went and submitted the article. Any help is greatly appreciated.  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at the article. I have a question though, you mentioned about it's status as being a concept album. I know some of the reviews allmusic, NME, and IGN each brining it up as a concept album and mentioning parts of the story. Also it is mentioned in the first paragraph of The Black Parade#Musical and lyrical themes. Are you suggesting to remove the see also? I think the fact that it is a concept album should be mentioned as it is brought up in multiple reviews but is the see also a bit too much you think?  Orfen  ^T • _C 01:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignore me i missed that. If it's sourced it's ok. --neon white talk 01:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fall Out Boy

Excuse me? I think you might want to do a little more research before you go warning established editors. First go read the talk page. Then go find out who took that article to GA. Then you can come back and discuss changes with me. LaraLove|Talk 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't throw WP:CIVIL at me. I'm not being uncivil. There are sources for all sorts of genres. That doesn't mean they belong in the infobox. Not to mention, the template page for the infobox specifies that only the main genres should be listed there. Emo is disputed, that much is clear, even the band disputes it. Their music doesn't fit in the genre. But, there's a widespread occurrence of emo taking on a broad definition and being tagged on various bands based on their fashion style and outward appearances regardless of their music. It's all explained in our article on emo. There's no lack of sources on Talk:Fall Out Boy, and there's also no lack of discussion. Please join that discussion. LaraLove|Talk 05:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not being disruptive, so you can please drop that now. This is wasting my time. The discussion is taking place on the articles talk page, where it belongs. Emo is disputed, and the band is a source to be taken into consideration when labeling the music in which they own the rights to. This isn't about my personal view. It's about the definition of emo, the band's sound and the various classifications of the band in various genres. I have sources for all sorts of genres for FOB. That doesn't make them all right, nor does it make them appropriate for the infobox, which is supposed to be generalized. LaraLove|Talk 05:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for reminding me of the three revert rule. It is interesting, however, that you are giving me warnings. You're reverting against consensus and had to be argued into using the talk page. Keep that in mind. LaraLove|Talk 06:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

there is no consensus to remove this valid cited content. --neon white talk 03:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there was a consensus. There was never a consensus to put it back in. It was just one of those things where the article was dropped from some watchlists, someone else readded it, no one contested it, thus a silent consensus. So now, in the starting stages of moving toward FAC, it's once again an issue, and emo is once again disputed. Again, it's not just about what sources say emo. We have sources that state a good seven or eight genres. That doesn't mean they should all be listed in the infobox. But I've been over this a dozen times already. It's all on the talk page. LaraLove|Talk 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus, please do not attempt to push a false consensus, it is not good editing behaviour. The reason it was added was that their were multiple sources to back it up. The only dispute is in personal opinions which has no relevance, there are multiple supporting sources. That is precisely what the bottom line is because that is how wikipedia works. We don't remove things because individual editor don't like it. There has been no reason given why a strongly sourced genre shouldnt be included. --neon white talk 04:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite a long discussion took place last year. The result was that alternative rock was placed in the infobox with a link that read "disputed subgenres" and lead to the Musical style section below it. I'm going to ask you now, one last time, to refrain further from commenting on me and to instead focus on the content. Now, I've given more than enough reason. It's all detailed on the articles talk page. So it would be helpful if you would read that discussion and stop commenting as if it doesn't exist. LaraLove|Talk 04:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

An utterly inappropriate result that was not inline with any guidelines which is likely the reason it is being challenged by editors more experienced with policy. The only reason you have stated so far is a personal objection which is not acceptable. Articles are based on sources not your opinion. You are not discussing this, you are merely repeating the same points based on a personal view and ignoring what the reliable sources say. --neon white talk 04:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is amusing. You haven't presented any argument at all. I've presented one. They do not have an emo sound. Pete has an emo look and I have a reliable source that states emo is being tagged on bands that do not have an emo sound based on other things. You playing ignorant to my argument and continuing to focus on me rather than the content is not going to get you far in this process. Consensus is reached by the contribution of weighted arguments. You continually insulting me is not a way to sway my opinion in order to contribute to reaching a consensus. Present to me how they are emo, past using "this source and this source says so." Because I've presented an RS to refute your argument that just because sources say it, it must be true. Also, you should research editor's and their background before making comments that leave you looking less than informed. It doesn't help your arguments. LaraLove|Talk 14:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would class Fall Out Boy as emo and have had a discussion with LaraLove as to why I think this is the case. I'm preparing my comment for the discussion on the talk page and also several sources I have found. I was looking at Lara's talk page prior to posting a message there and noticed this argument and thought I'd let you know that throwing the book at Lara may not be the most productive thing in the world. From what I know of her and from edit history, she's a fairly experienced editor with a lot of article contribution work and so I'm fairly certain she knows a lot about policy. You haven't really provided any sort of valid argument for your point of view but rather only rubbished (for want of a better word) Lara's and so you're probably just going round in circles rather than actually going anywhere useful. You appear to have quite a lot of topics on your talk page about genre disputes, especially involving emo and so it might be quite hard for some to accept that you are really doing this in good faith instead of pushing a personal agenda. Personally, I don't really care how people classify bands as I think it's open to interpretation from everyone's own personal viewpoint and overall, music is just something to be enjoyed, rather than endlessly argued over. Some people see emo as a negative tag and so a lot of bands try to avoid it. However, plenty see it as positive as well. Perhaps if you went away and came back with a more reasoned argument and more (or any) sources, your voice might be slightly more heard and you and Lara might be able to work something out. Best regards, ChaoticReality 14:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to individual editors to 'class' them based on their subjective view. It has to be based on what reliable sources say. I have provided the only valid argument that is worth anything, we multiple verifiable sources that is the bottom line. I don't need to provide anything more, it'd up to editor's who are objecting to come up with a reason why they believe these should be ignore and reason why they believe this article should ignore wikipedia policy. I helped develop both the emo article and the List of emo artists. It has become apparent that the genre was being removed from bands' articles that were extremely well sourced as emo based on personal objections. This is not good for wikipedia and it is in every editors interest to keep wikipedia from being censored. --neon white talk 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

"I have provided the only valid argument that is worth anything, we multiple verifiable sources that is the bottom line." <-- On the talk page of the article, there an equally valid number of reliable sources that class them as something other than emo. You say you helped develop the emo article and I commend you for that, but can you not see how then that would affect your opinion on which bands are emo or not and why you think they should be classed as emo on Wikipedia? Perhaps you should take a step back and consider other points of view and the sources that support them, rather than just blindly throwing policy at people to get your own way. For what it's worth, I think FOB are emo and will try and find some more sources to back this up so please don't take this as me rebutting your opinion, just a plea to consider that you (and me), might not always be right. ChaoticReality 14:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Sources that say something else have no relevance whatsoever. You are missing the point. Wikipedia is not based on my, or anybody's, personal opinions it's based on the massive number of verifiable sources that back this up which can be found on the talk page. --neon white talk 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Just let me make sure I've got this correct; "Sources that say something else have no relevance whatsoever.". Are you saying that sources that disagree with your (backed up) view that FOB are emo are incorrect? What makes any of the sources that classify FOB as something else invalid? And yes, of course WP is based on the verifiable sources. I fear, rather, that it was you missed my point that there are valid sources for classifying them differently as well as valid sources for classifying them as emo. ChaoticReality 06:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are no sources that do that and even if there were, it wouldnt change the view of the mass of verifaible sources available. Sources that classify something differently are not disagreeing with another sources classification. --neon white talk 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

me myself chalk this whole situation as a pov fillibuster by lara ,this is lame its is only about genre and there are enough reliable sources for them to be both pop punk as well as emo. The relaible sources that sited them as emo are national public radio,rhapsody,spin magazine,rolling stone mag,the new york times,msn and also billboard all articles from these places have them as emo unless lara can come up with sources to debunk each individual article of these extremely reliable sources i dont see why this situation is going on besides pov issues--Wikiscribe (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think we should assume good faith for now but considering this is similar to countless objections that have taken place in the past with similar arguments against the term you are probably right. Add to those sources MSN Music[6], Village Voice[7] and DiS[8]. --neon white talk 01:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This sort of thing seems to go on at many of the emo bands articles, i see people try and claim my chemical romance as not being emo lol,they try to claim Cute is what we Aim for is not emo,panic at the disco is not emo,even though there are sources out the ying yang for all those bands being of the emo genre,i dont get it these bands are mainstream pop emo bands--Wikiscribe (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has gone on plenty and experienced editors have stepped in to stop personal objections being used to remove the genre when it is well sourced. It's bad for wikipedia to allow this to go on. --neon white talk 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)