User talk:Thecure8985

May 2023

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Marilyn Manson (band) seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Charlotte Sometimes (song). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 19:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Marilyn Manson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Dookie, you may be blocked from editing. AppalachianCentrist (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at One Step Closer (Linkin Park song). Magatta (talk) 23:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Division

Hi,

I think I understand why you don't want Joy Division or their albums to be listed as new wave, and I'm somewhat sympathetic. You might think that if post-punk and new wave are recognised as separate genres, then the line has to be drawn somewhere to properly differentiate them. If there aren't any post-punk bands from the late 70s and 80s who don't also fall under new wave, then the two concepts basically just collapse into one another and become meaningless. So if your goal is to try to protect the integrity of post-punk and new wave as separate genres, I do see where you're coming from, and honestly I respect it. I've been involved in a very similar battle regarding synth-pop and new wave. The only difference, I'd argue, is that from a historical perspective, synth-pop and new wave actually were very separate genres, and it is important to provide a truthful historical narrative. The idea that synth-pop is a genre or 'subgenre' of new wave is basically the result of a cultural misunderstanding, whereby Americans in the 1980s grouped together all sorts of British music into one big category called 'new wave' that had little to no relation to how the term was used in the UK or even by most professional critics in the United States.

Anyhow, the difference between this case and the post-punk/new wave issue is that, from a historically accurate perspective, it is actually correct to refer to bands like Joy Division as new wave, because that is how they were referred to in the late 70s in their home country of the United Kingdom. The truth is, there was no 'goth' scene for Joy Division to be a part of when they were active, and the term 'post-punk' was only just beginning to be used, not as the name of a genre but as a reference to the fact that the initial punk wave had ended. The terms post-punk and goth have been applied retrospectively to Joy Division, and I think it's fair to do so. But it's also important to describe them as they were described at the time, and that was as new wave. There are interviews from the late 70s where Ian Curtis refers to Joy Division and fellow Mancunian punks Buzzcocks as new wave. So our difference, I think, is whether we should put more value in defining genres on how the terms were actually used at the time, or how some people have now decided to arbitrarily define them in the present day. It's true that more people today would describe Joy Division as post-punk rather than new wave based on the definitions that have been invented, but the historical fact that they were considered new wave should not be erased. Even though the AllMusic article is from 2023, by describing Unknown Pleasures as new wave the author is more in line with how Joy Division actually defined themselves than most contemporary musos are.

One last thought on the genres thing, for example's sake. According to the definitions that some people have created, whereby synth-pop and new wave are squeezed together, New Order might seem a better fit for the new wave tag than Joy Division. The author of the AllMusic article even says that in his piece. But the fact is that in England in the 1980s, the term new wave was not really used past 1980, and certainly not to describe New Order in its mid-80s disco days. In actuality, it was New Order, not Joy Division, that often merited description as 'post-punk' while they were active, as the term became more common in the 1980s than it had been in Joy Division's heyday. It's true that Joy Division didn't fit the standard mold for most new wave artists in the late 70s, as most new wavers (Costello, The Jam, The Police) made pop(ular) music whereas Joy Division did not, but since they put a clearly different spin on punk, that's how they were described. Compare it to Talking Heads in the late 70s; though hardly a pop group at that point like their contemporaries Blondie and The Cars, they led the pack of New Wave artists with their artsy approach to punk. And even though Joy Division is now much more frequently described as post-punk, their connection to new wave remains: on Discogs, the largest music database on the internet, they are the first group listed under new wave, and Unknown Pleasures the first album:

https://www.discogs.com/style/new+wave

So yes, I will be reverting your edit on Unknown Pleasures, but out of respect for your desire to keep post-punk and new wave separate, I'll let it stay off the page for Closer, even though it should be listed there too. I hope this is a reasonable compromise and we both understand each other better now.

Thanks, Janglyguitars (talk) 05:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can take that comprise Thecure8985 (talk) 09:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rock

Ehh I wants expecting it to not be left there like yeah I understand tho for that one it really doesn’t bother me really so yeah umm just letting you know Thecure8985 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative

Ehh it doesn’t matter I’m ok with it not having it or not cause it’s you know I’m not mad at all Thecure8985 (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Decemberunderground

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Decemberunderground, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Within the Realm of a Dying Sun

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Within the Realm of a Dying Sun, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Nevermind. Binksternet (talk) 00:53, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at This Ain't a Scene, It's an Arms Race. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Speak & Spell (album). snapsnap ^(talk) 19:10, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Seventeen Seconds

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Seventeen Seconds, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]