User talk:F-22 Raptored

Hey

You keep reversing my edits on Bathory's article. What do you want me to do to please your need of control? User:ForHelvetes|ForHelvetes (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Because they're not constructive edits.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? Why do you figure? (User talk:ForHelvetes|talk) 23:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForHelvetes (talk • contribs)

Playing around with the infobox, changing titles and genres without consensus isn't?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You may call it what you like, you're obviously an experienced editor of Wikipedia articles and would be a pain in the ass to convince and you're not worth the time. (User talk:ForHelvetes|talk) 20:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.190.49 (talk)

Attack??

what?? i did not attack?? i didnt even put a ! so how can i be attacking?? Megabar09 (talk) 19:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I didn't think I was suppose to sign the coded ones. XD--F-22 Raptor ^IV 21:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Why cant you see that a little Piece of Heaven isn't Hard Rock!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arneandre (talk • contribs) 18:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you're not supposed to edit another persons discussion... then why is it an option? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arneandre (talk • contribs) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Youve said yourself that theyve only made a few hard rock songs... overall they are metal, olny about 5 % of their song are hard rock and it does not count as mutch as the rest of the music theyve made which is some kind of metal (95%)... I think, that even what is supposed to be their hard rock songs, are very metel inspired, if it even can be called hard rock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arneandre (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

But rock could be anything between death metal and pop-rock and that is misleading —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arneandre (talk • contribs) 19:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Then how about saying that theyre a Heavy Metal and Hard Rock band... rock is just too big an area...--Arneandre (talk) 19:59, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Honest Bob, etc

Yes, you're correct, and I have now nominated the band article for deletion. Deb (talk) 17:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

If I wasn't an admin, I wouldn't be able to do deletions. Deb (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of It's Not as Bad as I'm Making It Sound

A tag has been placed on It's Not as Bad as I'm Making It Sound requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a musical recording which does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, and where the artist's article has never existed, has been deleted or is eligible for deletion itself. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for music.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Graymornings_(talk) 04:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: March 2009.

I do not assume ownership, as I said, if you look through the history of the page it's been deleted every time. I'm not gonna keep having these edit wars with on this page. you seem to ignore policy every time. This revision, by another user, even states "Removed irrelevant info." Obviously it is not just me. Other users seem to believe it is irrelevant. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm done with this page. "Common knowledge" is not necessarily a reliable source. It's been sourced, but that doesn't mean it's relevant. I'm done with that page, taking it off my watchlist, so do what you want with it. --HELLØ ŦHERE 02:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there

You just attached an AGF notice to my talk page, but I am unsure what for... could you elaborate? I will of course apologise to anyone that I have inappropriately importuned. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I disagree on this issue... assuming good faith once is fair enough; if the edit has been reverted once (with edit summary justification) and the same new editor (or anon IP in this case) reverts back (with no justification), then that constitutes vandalism. The list is heavily edited by people adding either bands with no article or bands that do not fit the criteria for the list, and hence stuff like that gets deleted fairly swiftly. Sorry if you felt I was being heavy-handed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Good faith edit

I don't think I had any bad faith on my part so I say the same to you. Maybe you can explain this to me. 71.190.246.97 (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When I use "rvv", it is short for revert version. If this last "v" is known to mean vandalism on Wikipedia then I am sorry and will do an alternative from then on to avoid misconceptions such as this. 71.190.246.97 (talk) 01:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I see now. Thanks for your understanding and for removing the now irrelevant notice. 71.190.246.97 (talk) 01:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Fall Out Boy at the list of punk bands

This comes up often enough, removing bands like Blink 182, Sum 41, etc. It's those "real punks" making these edits, who know what actual punk music is. Fall Out Boy is called pop punk at their article, and there is a reference (Rolling Stone) to back up this classification (and Allmusic agrees). — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Joan Jett on the list of punk bands

Ok man look, i'm using fact to try and get Joan Jett on to the punk list. on the punk list it says that it is for artists who have played punk at some point in their career, and she has. it is not my opinion it is fact. if other bands that no longer play punk music deserve to be on the list, so does Joan Jett...plus i don't really understand the talk stuff so if you could explain it to me that would be greatly appreciated Asdasa (talk) 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Her cover of little drummer boy was put in a rather punk format and her song you don't know what you've got was punk plus a highh number of her hard rock songs are hard rock/punk crossovers or are hard rock with punk vocals Asdasa (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Last.fm has many punk artists listed under her similar artists, this link,http://punkturns30.blogspot.com/2005/03/joan-jett-punk-ambassador.html, calls her the punk ambassador, and i can't remember where, but i saw her called a punk/hard rock goddess Asdasa (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

so, in other words, you're saying she is or she isn't? Asdasa (talk) 23:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Nu metal

You removed undiscussed content on the article The Burning Red[1], and as far as that goes, you as well reverted my edit restoring what you removed[2], theories never are valid on Wikipedia, if you desire a correct theory you should read the article, that album as far as it goes after the next one have several nu metal influences. The two edits that you have made to the article have been indentified as vandalism. - GunMetal Angel 23:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, you certainly didn't really have a major reason to remove it, you can't just say "I don't think this band is this" and remove something like that undiscussed. Genre modifiying is a big deal, and is mostly reverted as well as considered vandalism or Genre Warriorizing. - GunMetal Angel 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What a Catch, Donnie

I apologize for doing so. I am new to this and was not aware that what I was doing was wrong. The information previously posted that was cut out was factual information from a concert of which I know people who attended that can back it up. The interview statement could definitely be backed up as well..--Freaky Face Films ^TC

Dear F-22 Raptored, although I did add unsourced information that was previously deleted. I did not originally post that unsourced information. I own one single account on Wikipedia and that is this one. I not only understood your warning, but replied back to you apologizing as well. I am sorry for what I did (as I am new to this) and have not done it again since the date when you told me not to. Thus, you can not claim that I have "ignored several warnings" from you. I sincerely apologize for all the trouble but I only added unsourced information ONCE and ONCE ONLY.--Freaky Face Films ^TC

I did not originally add that info. I found out that it was deleted awhile back and didn't understand why; I felt like it was improperly deleted so I re-added that information (that was again NOT originally posted by me) because it sounded accurate and included some key topics to the article in my opinion. It was re-deleted again a bit later, so again not understanding why or not seeing a reason listed on the deleted edit info, I added it back once more. I had no source to back-up who ever's information that originally was, so it was deleted! The problem ENDED after that thank you very much! Look I am a 14 year old kid ok, I know NOTHING about all this IP Address stuff and the fact that you spend your spare time terrorizing people over the internet is very sad. You can not just come up with random assumptions, if that was the case I would be allowed to just start saying HEY F-22 RAPTORED IS USING MULTIPLE IP ADDRESSES!!! EVERYBODY GO CRAZY ON HIM! - I mean seriously grow up. For the last time, the only thing I ever did wrong was add unsourced information, I am sorry ok and the unsourced info has been deleted anyways since I could not find an internet source to back it up! Other than that one time, I have not broken the rules or terms/agreements of Wikipedia in any way what-so-ever that I am aware of or was done intentionally and I have not been tweaking with my IP Addresses. I have only used two computers so far to access my Wikipedia account anyways. If you continue to falsely accuse me and purposely terrorize me as you have been doing, I will be forced to report these attacks; so I ask that you please simply allow this to end now. Whatever you think I have done, I haven't. You do not know how it feels to be in a situation where someone is yelling at you for something you simply don't even understand nor are not guilty of! Although we may not get along, I still apologize for the original slight trouble I caused with unsourced information (we all make mistakes) and for this whole burden fight like situation. I do not want to keep this going any longer. All I ask is to be left alone now. I SWEAR I have stated everything I know about this situation and just now wish for this crazy nightmare to be over with. - Freaky Face Films--Freaky Face Films (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

It is not the IP address situation that got me upset. It's the vicious attacks. I'm sorry you seriously think I have 'committed this Wikipedia crime' but I stand by the fact that I know myself with all honesty in place that I am innocent. I only have means of helping the further advancement of Wikipedia and nothing I have ever done was purposely done solely just to "vandalize" or be anti-constructive to Wikipedia. Again I don't even think you have stated enough accurate proof that highlights any wrongdoing on purposeful accounts. "Similar Editing Styles" is extremely vague and broad - something I personally don't believe is a good enough reason or enough information to accuse someone of anything for that matter. But do as you wish, I have confidence and hope that someone who truly specializes in a matter similar to the one going on now will be able to put the pieces together and see that I have not violated Wikipedia sockpuppeting terms, as all I have done on What a Catch, Donnie is stuff that I have previously stated by now and that I did not receive any warnings when logged out of my account or on my other computer that I am aware of, thus those IP Addresses do not belong to me. As far as I'm concerned, my editing on that article is over anyways, I will be moving on and making helpful and sourced edits as fit on any articles I run into that need help in similar ways as is the same goal for every other Wikipedia member. - Freaky Face Films--Freaky Face Films (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

F-22 Raptored, I wanted to let you know that I checked the IP Address Changes and Edits to the article you posted. Source Numbers 6 and 8 only edited that one part of the article. While the other two source numbers added additional corrections while I know for a fact all I ever did was add that large section about the interview and concert. And since I recently switched onto my laptop, that might explain the 2 different IP addresses. But I know I didn't make those other edits! The only thing I've touched in What a Catch, Donnie was that big paragraph, the little one word changings had nothing to do with me! I believe it is more than likely someone else re-added them after you deleted me adding them because they made a few other changes than just adding that paragraph back. I am just stating reasonable data here that I hope you will consider. I find this site can be very confusing at times but compared to the evidence you stated, I believe this does make a bit of sense. I've mentioned before about the laptop switch too so this isn't something I just magically came up with as an excuse! If you piece these bits together and refer back to me saying my editing of twice, this does seem to add up. Hopefully, you will please take just a little time to think about these factors. If you have more evidence or questions that you think still prove I "sockpuppeted" I will be more than happy to try and figure out what you mean myself. But I never payed attention to the actual Edits those IP Addresses made til now. I know I am the one being accused, but I wanted to bring up these points because I think it provides some factual and recorded data that supports my innocence on sockpuppeting with 4 different IP Adresses. Please take the time to look at these things yourself too. Thank You. --Freaky Face Films (talk) 02:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Chevelle

Have a look at the edit I just made and you will see it is not advertising. I merely replaced the item which you deleted without explanation. I'm trying to be helpful and informative, you are being pedantic and willfull. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.169.151 (talk) 02:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If I modified the information to remove the "advertising" and was simply adding to what a previous user posted then I cannot be in violation. I noted that you first resorted to a threat before any attempt at communication and the destruction of other information just to spite anoter user must surely be considered vandalism.70.20.169.151 (talk) 02:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

And I was simply trying to add a helpful update. I realized that linking to a site is considered promotion and so removed the link but the information should be allowed to remain. I was not intending vandalism or any other sort of guidelines violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.169.151 (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I meant no harm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.169.151 (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes I didn't see that.70.20.169.151 (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good job

You do a good job looking after the hard rock list (+ other related articles) Some people think that if you play a song with a distorted guitar you MUST be hard rock. Hard rock and heavy metal have the same origins and the same term can apply to many of the two genre's pioneering bands. But hard rock is very different from heavy metal and it is nice to see someone like you, who can tell the difference, taking care of some of those articles. Keep up the good work! Fair Deal (talk) 20:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Machine Head, List of Alternative Metal Artists

I noticed that you removed Machine Head from the list. That's fine. But I did some checking and it seems you added them to the list shortly before. What changed your mind about their AlternMetal status? --LordNecronus (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Oingo Boingo

You're wrong. I haven't seen an info box with any references in it, ever. The information is already so prevalent throughout the article, and duly explained, perhaps referenced, that no call to adding references to the info box is needed. If you are truly intent on having references in the info box, do it yourself: Boingo Mosley & The B-Men Clowns Of Death Zuma II Good luck to you.68.36.148.39 (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Added +rollback to your permissions on request -- Samir 00:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Mötley Crüe

When you want to get rid of a red-link you need to remove the brackets not the text. -- allen四names 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

RE

What? Oh yes, Chevelle, Puddle of Mudd, Audioslave and others primary genre is hard rock, its funny, and where are the sources that prove they are a primary hard rock band? There are two sources for 30 Seconds to Mars, so stop revert my edit.--Matthew Riva (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you read the sources?--Matthew Riva (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sources say they're a hard rock band, but that's not their first genre is it? I'm going to question Chevelle's and Puddle of Mudd's status as well.--猛禽22 ^•• 22:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, F-22 Raptored. You have new messages at Kiac's talk page.
Message added 02:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

tedder (talk) 02:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Disturbed and Disposable Heroes

While adding the info about Disposable Heroes is a blatant violation of WP:CRYSTAL, I have no reason to believe it is true. As a frequent a Disturbed fansite, the only confirmed knowledge of the next album is that writing has started. Not that it is impossible, but I don't see it as anything true. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Try to keep this information to the Disturbed talk page.--猛禽22 ^•• 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Korn

Hello, F-22 Raptored. You have new messages at Gunmetal Angel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Taken care of

I added the references.BillyJack193 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Where'd You Go?"

The version of "Where'd You Go?" in Rock Band 2 is in fact a re-record. Thanks for fixing that. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

This Is War single

they just pushed back the adds date to a week later.

On the American radio the song debuted on March 1, it is official [3] [4] [5] On AOL radio debuted on February 26 [6], in the UK on March 29 http: //www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2288311, in Italy on March 5 [7].--79.56.182.229 (talk) 22:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

On the official Twitter, 30 Seconds to Mars said on March 1 that the single is released on March 1 [8].--79.52.180.196 (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

ItHysteria

I already have a request pending at WP:RFPP. Unfortunately, ItHysteria has access to a large range of IP addresses, and blocking him would require blocking most of Italy.—Kww(talk) 20:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages he's been hitting today have been protected for two months. Let me know if you see him on other articles or suspect he has come back under a named account.—Kww(talk) 00:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Thanks.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 01:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:The Red Chord

Greetings. Since grindcore is not a subgenre of heavy metal, it does not seem appropriate to label TRC as a heavy metal band. Although, You are right that "rock" is the nearest "parent genre" of the band's listed genres, it does not seem appropriate to label the band as a rock band, since the listed sources do not label the band as a "rock" band. Calling TRC a rock band or a heavy metal band is a synthesis of cources, which is original research. As far as I am concerned, and as far as I can read, the majority of the listed sources settle down to call TRC a grindcore band and that is a reason to publish the same here; some more recently published material emphasized "deatcore", and that's why I used this term for the lead section as well. The death metal in the infobox was not my idea and it does not seem to be a refelction of the article body. Mind that synthesis of sources is not acceptable and that the lead section and the infobox are supposed to summarize the article body and are not a stand-alone parts of the article. I hope I answered your question.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:42, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

How the hell is calling The Red Chord a rock band original research when deathcore and grindcore are clearly subgenres of rock music? deathcore is a subgenre to death metal, a subgenre to heavy metal, a subgenre to rock. Grindcore is a little harder to classify, but it looks like that it uses genres that are classified as rock, such as hardcore punk and metal. It is only appropriate to umbrella term these title genres, and calling them a grindcore band while deathcore is a present genre still doesn't make sense.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, You might logically deduce that TRC is a rock band (which obviously is true), since the band's genre is a subgenre of rock, but that's a "conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" (WP:SYN), which is not acceptable on Wikiedia. "Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (WP:V). I dont see any sources saying "TRC is a rock band.", so Wikipedia can't come up with this, if the source does not. I' sorry.

The point is, that You obviously think that the first sentence in the lead section is supposed to incude the only genre, which is the nearest parent genre of all the listed genres, but that is wrong. There is no guideline saying that. Wikipedia is not the judge who sums up all information and draws its own conclusion from them. Wikipedia sums up all the information and publishes them as they are. This means, if majority of the sources settle down to grindcore and some more recently published mention deathcore, you can't say they are a rock band. If the sources say "grindcore and deathcore or whatever", it means "grindcore and deathcore or whatever" and nothing else.

An example of exactly this: Metallica, a featured article (the featured version), includes heavy metal, thrash metal, hard rock and speed metal in the infobox; and it says heavy metal in the first sentence. Is hard rock as subenre if heavy metal? Nope. Why is then heavy metal in the first sentence? Because majority of the sources call the band a heavy metal band. I hope I answered your question.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hey?

hey? you should not notification to me again due to you may is been chicanery by me if the actual error. info i agree that wrong --125.24.3.17 (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

What?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 03:08, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool

Thanks, I'll be creating my account as soon, and this actually made me google down some discussion around 'a' vs 'an European', thanks again.--201.168.207.15 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Word Up!

Excuse me? There are clearly no citations in that article, so as a result the whole article should be removed unless someone provides citations for all the information there. Removing my revert to your change is not acceptable considering how you made a change without providing a source yourself. It is very clear why that change was undone.Carmaker1 (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The album was definitely released in 1986 [9]. Reverting your edit is acceptable because you are adding October information without any addition to a source. I don't know what changes that would be considered original research I have made other than removing the month. I only started watching the page, as I do watch others. If you can source the information that is fine.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 18:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Alex Chilton

You think that's contentious, do you? You'll be removing most of the rest of the article then? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ever since Alex Chilton died, I have been watching the article. The article does need clean-up for now yes, but I'm not allowing any additional unsourced information. What's so hard about adding a source anyway?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 20:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

You're not allowing it? May I ask your permission to edit the article? The citation needed tag is a perfectly valid one, or else it wouldn't exist. The only information that should be removed immediately is contentious BLP stuff, which this isn't. I can't add a source for the moment because I don't have one to hand. Maybe someone else does, and they can add it. That's how it works. Maybe you could add one yourself rather than arbitrarily deciding what goes in and what doesn't. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I have other work to do, I'm not adding a source for you. It is your responsibility to back up your edits. Refer to WP:OR, WP:V and WP:CITATION.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 20:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's so helpful. You allow acres of existing unsourced stuff in an article but refuse any more, yet make no attempt to actually contribute to it. You quote guidelines that you ignore for the rest of the article, including contentious information, but try to implement them for a completely inocuous addition. You have no time to add anything, but you have time to remove it. You'll note that it wasn't my original edit anyway, but a member of the Box Tops. He's bound to be wrong, of course. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Like what I have said, I have only started watching the article, so I wasn't here to witness other additional unsourced content. You're making it harder than it should be. Just add the source.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 20:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, sir!!! Thank you for letting me edit your encyclopedia, and I look forward to all the work you're going to do on the Alex Chilton article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

In RE: Axis: Bold as Love

First off, don't appreciate the attitude. I've been editing those articles for a few years now, so a little respect would be nice considering I've been pretty top notch in terms of ensuring reliable sources. Furthermore: read your sources...

Available on Xbox 360 and Wii (March 30) and PlayStation 3 system (April 1):

• “Up From the Skies”
• “Spanish Castle Magic” +
• “Wait Until Tomorrow” +
• “Ain’t No Telling” +
• “Little Wing” +
• “If 6 Was 9” +
• “You Got Me Floatin’” +
• “Castles Made of Sand”
• “She’s So Fine” +
• “One Rainy Wish” +
• “Little Miss Lover”
• “Bold As Love” +
• “Valleys of Neptune”

(All tracks are original master recordings) (Tracks marked with “+” are also available for download in the family-friendly LEGO® Rock Band Music Store.)

These tracks will be available for purchase as the “Axis: Bold As Love Album” pack, as well as individual tracks on Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 system and as individual tracks only on Wii.

Which comes straight from HMX, who would be a fairly reliable source on the matter. There was no issue with the edits I made when you compare it to the sources I was using. If those sources were misstated or mistaken, then make the fix and move on. So next time, I'd appreciate if you pay attention to sources and keep the attitude under wraps. Kthxbi. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I went with the HMX source, which I have bolded above. If you had uncertainty you could've checked the sources as I stated. I don't even see why this discussion is necceasry. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Harmonix, the makers of Rock Band can't be considered a verifiable and reliable source, then what source is there? The HMX source was misstated, the misstatement was caught when the tracks were released, the article was corrected. There should never have been an issue here, your comments on my talk page were uncalled for. I consider the issue over. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 03:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism - Congratulations (album)

I would like to know why you deemed my edit 'unconstructive' and reversed it as vandalism. My thought process for making the edit was as follows: I located a review of the album from Allmusic and wanted to add it to the article. In the process of adding the review I noticed the 10-review maximum notice. My reason for replacing the BBC review with the review from Allmusic was that I thought a review on a concrete scale (4.5/5 in this case) was a more accurate depiction of critical response to the album than a non-concrete review (the BBC's review was referenced as 'mixed,' an interpretation by the user that placed that review there in the first place). Is there some additional protocol I should have followed in making this judgment? Help me understand.Granedit (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Amongst looking at the warning, it appears I've used the wrong one. What I meant to say that edits like these should be discussed on the talk page, which we are doing now. I've nominated to remove the Q review.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 23:23, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

All Day Music

PLEASE STOP edit warring, reverting one minute after another revert before any time as allowed to respond (either on a talk page, or make fixes to the article), tag bombing, making absurd accusations in edit summaries, and leaving inappropriate talk page comments. Regarding your contesting of the song title on All Day Music, it's taken from a copy of the original album. For older albums, Amazon always takes their info from CD reissues, and unfortunately so does Allmusic usually, so they are not reliable sources for this kind of thing. The article acknowledges reissues have changed the title, so it already covers what you are trying to convey. There is a "cite album notes" template that can be used to state that info is being taken from an album cover, and I was intending to add it before your instant revert came in. When I reverted, I used an edit summary, "revert, citations refer to reissue which article already covers, also removing tag bombing", therefore the note you left on my user talk page, "Please do not delete content ... without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary ... Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits" is completely out of line and unnecessarily snarky. And why on earth would you put "Caution: Page blanking, removal of content" on the edit summary for my talk page entry? Absolutely no page blanking occurred anywhere. As for citing the singles, I can certainly do that, but give me a few minutes to type it in. I have been using citations from Goldmine reference books where necessary, but usually don't consider it necessary when stating the existence of singles. This is very bad behaviour to haggle over the question of removing a little "g" from a song title, and you should know better than to throw a fit when a change is reverted. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you really need to review the menu still posted on your talkpage, and more importantly, look over WP:RS. If anything, it is you who is being disruptive. I am reverting your edits due to the sole fact that you are removing information to what I have sourced twice (Allmusic and Amazon are not only reliable, but they are some of the most respected and trusted sources on music), and replacing it with information that is completely bare and unsourced, and thus questioning whether this is original research. It also appears that you are assuming ownership of the article.

Also, I regret to inform you that this is actually not an edit war, because you are going against the manual of style at the current moment by removing sourced material, and you'll end up getting blocked for vandalism. Add a source or two to back up your claim, or you will still get reverted.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 00:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

**ahem** I already said I am in the process of adding citations. Are you even reading what I'm typing? I also explained that Amazon and Allmusic are VERY poor sources when it comes to accurately documenting differences between original editions and reissues. Amazon is a retail site. They quote information from the items they sell. They don't cover differences between CD editions and original LP editions at all; it's beyond the scope of their website. Allmusic is an internet-age site, and they generally get their information from CDs. I am certainly not assuming ownership of the article in restoring information about original vs. reissue editions, and I am attempting to comply with your request for citations, if you will give it a moment. As for "removing sourced material", what are you referring to? No "material" was removed at all, just citations, for the reasons explained. As for your "tag bombing" (as I called it), I don't know why you challenged some things such as description of the cover and other info quoted directly from the track listing. Anyway, I'm going to add one Goldmine reference and one "album notes" citation; everything else you asked for would be a duplication of those. If you really think more citations are needed, you can let me know, or discuss it on the album's talk page. But please, no more reverts and tagging. Tags aren't necessary when discussions about improvement are ongoing. Thanks. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Might I ask where is the link to these new sources?--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 02:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a mistake to think that citations need to be online, or that online sources are better than print sources. WP:SOURCES discusses print sources first: "the piece of work itself (a document, article, paper, or book)", and then later adds, "Electronic media may also be used". This was done deliberately to emphasize that many Wikipedia editors consider physical publications to be superior to online sources, despite the fact that online sources can be checked faster.

It's very important to realize that the record album (and its cover) is, in itself, a publication, and can be used as a source of information. This has been raised before at WP:WikiProject Albums, when info taken directly from the album cover is challenged. The response is generally that this is something where a citation is redundant (in the sense that if you were writing an article about a book, you wouldn't keep citing the book itself all through the article), although in this instance where the information seems to vary from one edition to another, a citation can be used to clarify which edition the information is coming from. I should point out that the "cite albums notes" template is not really intended for this; it is mainly for citing from essay-like liner notes, not tracklists and credits. However, it is intended to be used as a print medium citation, and no links are required. Similarly, the Goldmine reference is a citaiton of a physical reference book, not a website, and books are perfectly valid as sources. And it's not really a proper citation either, because it just lists song titles (stating the single's title is "Slippin' into Darkness") without an actual discussion of a title change. Here again, the 45 rpm record itself is a publication, and a "citation" of what's printed on a record label is not usually a requirement at Wikipedia.

If you are still in doubt, here is a scan I made of a small portion of the back cover. This should not really be necesary, and it certainly would not be appropriate to put this image in the article, not even on its talk page (as a permenant fixture). I also included the part that states where the track "Baby Brother" was recorded, since you put a citation tag on that in the article.

Hopefully this answers what you are looking for, but if not, we can continue to discuss it. Have a great day! --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

List of industrial music bands

You realize that there are potentially dozens of bands on that list that should be removed, if they should only be listed on sub-genre lists? In fact, I daresay if we were to follow that policy, the list of industrial music bands would dwindle down to perhaps a dozen groups. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

We're only enforcing the bands that only play industrial metal into the list of industrial metal bands. Bands like Nine Inch Nails and KMFDM are exceptions on the industrial music list because they don't just play industrial metal.--F-22 Raptör^{Aces High♠} 22:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'm not really that familiar with H&G, and didn't see anything in particular to explain their not being listed alongside such bands as those you mentioned. I just went to the talk page, and saw that you've already hashed this out, so I've no intention of disrupting anything. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 23:12, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

rb/hendrix

You are drastically misapplying CRYSTAL and how we deal with web sources. Guessing that, oh, Pink Floyd is coming to RB is CRYSTAL; the news about Jimi, though broke by RS, was confirmed by HMX as well, so that's not an unknown. It is understood that websites may have problems or the like; we had the problem a few years ago when 1UP rearranged all their links on their pages. Here, it seems either part of RS's website is being redesigned or the server is having problems, but patiently waiting to make sure it gets restored (and this is RS, I don't think this is a long-term problem) is the right solution. Only if the web site had problems after several weeks, implying it was no lnger maintained (and lacking a cache version) or if the actual article was pulled does that invalidate the source and thus bring in CRYSTAL issues if not otherwise externally validated. I have found the article at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/;kw=[13082,53280] but you can see it doesn't looking right, so again, I suspect there's a temporary problem that will be resolved in a day or so, and thus there's no point in eliminating the sourced statement. --MASEM (t) 05:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw the edits in the history, thought it would be handy to stop in and point out WP:LINKROT. Especially this quote: Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. I will be taking steps to track down an archived version of this article. Removal of content we all know to be true simply because the link broke is riddiculous. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 13:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

List of death metal bands

Hello. The split of this page was discussed previously, but it still hasn't happened yet. I can volunteer to do the split. However, I am questionable as to how to do the split. To see my commentary, go to the bottom of Talk:List of death metal bands. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 22:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Paramore

My apologies, I was actually reverting my edits after double checking; "re-read source, states "power-pop-punk". New York Times only states loosely affiliated with emo. Reverted" - before you changed it first. Won't happen again! HrZ (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

List of indie rock musicians

I see your ongoing good work weeding out non-notable (no article) and inappropriate entries (mainstream) - the only suggestion I'd make is to include a word or two in the edit summary to that effect. But that's just because I like edit summaries. --Lexein (talk) 09:25, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: Big room

I don't see why you're reverting the removal of that because it was unsourced, when ironically, the entire article cites almost nothing to begin with. It is a genre I've been seeing, but its a relatively new genre to an extent. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:12, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, F-22 Raptored. 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)

Nomination of Freak XXI for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Freak XXI is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freak XXI until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

'''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)