Talk:Control (Garbage song)

industrial & electronic source quote
Source:, quote > "Control," "Big Bright World" and "Blood For Poppies," which continue in the group's tradition of blending the best of the alternative era with plenty of electronic and industrial elements" ...hence genres of all three songs: Alternative rock, electronic rock, industrial rock. Both are in the context of Alternative rock. , quit removing cited edits, voice any concern on talk page first. --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The full quote from source linked above: "The set is stacked heavily with recent tunes like "Control," "Big Bright World" and "Blood For Poppies," which continue in the group's tradition of blending the best of the alternative era with plenty of electronic and industrial elements." So where are you getting all the "rock" from? The source doesn't cite Alternative rock, electronic rock, or industrial rock. They state alternative "era" (does Garbage encapsulate the entire alternative "era"?) with electronic and industrial "elements". That source doesn't properly suggest anything you're trying to ascribe to it. I'm reverting those edits once again. Try to find a better, less ambiguous source. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're unnecessarily nitpicking. The source clearly categorizes those three songs as alternative, electronic, and industrial. Even modifies it with "plenty of" for industrial and electronic. 'Rock' is inherent and a given from the classifications; Alternative is Alternative rock (as it states in wiki article). You can nitpick about using electronic music or electronic rock (which upon differentiating, the latter merely specifies that it is rock music with electronic instruments/technology, which is what is inherent here), and Industrial music or industrial rock - again, it is in the context of alternative/alternative rock (industrial music is an umbrella term); it's obvious given the context of the band's wide categorization as alternative rock. However, you dismiss the entire quote and refuse to use the cited genres. If you continue to question it, do a Request for Comment. Quit reverting edits, specifically my recent edits on this bands' pages, and engaging in Edit Warring. @ --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Having "elements" of a genre, does not make it part of the genre. You can put that in the prose, but in the infobox, it's not clear to readers. Do not add it there. Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "plenty of elements" is in the quote. Where does it say such wording is not notable, or is that merely your subjective view?--Lpdte77 (talk) 19:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And I'd like to note to (and yourself), that Canvassing is against Wiki policy, in light of recent actions. --Lpdte77 (talk) 19:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's funny. If you'll look at my edit history I've done it with Dan56 once and someone else who said nothing. Try assuming WP:GOODFAITH before attacking editors. Also, "plenty", "multitude" "an extraviganza" of elements, stll isn't good. You have to stick to the source. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What? That is not assuming good faith, I linked to a relevant Wiki article detailing what Canvassing, not made it up or was aggressive toward you. It should not be done in the future is my point. You employ an inventive sense of what 'attacking' is; apologies if you consider that being attacked. Stick to the source, as detailed, is accurately presenting what a source says; e.g., here, writing in the article: "blending the best of the alternative era with plenty of electronic and industrial elements" as opposed to, say, "blending alternative with electronic and industrial elements". I am referring to you linking to where it says "plenty of elements" (or like-minded statements) is not noteworthy or usable.--Lpdte77 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Elements is vague and should not be interpreted as a genre. In other words, seeing it listed in an infobox, it's not immediately obvious to a user that these are just referring to "elements" of some other genres. You can use it in the prose, but it would misguide a user to place it in the infobox. Apologies if i'm mixing up arguements, I've got a couple talk pages balancing out in my head from various talk pages. Oi. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. I understand what you're saying, with respect to the infobox. But I think I'd like to get some sort of consensus on that view (with respect to the infobox) through a RfC. I'll initiate it in a bit. I will add the text to the prose then. --Lpdte77 (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * And why would you feel it necessary to throw a "note" my way regarding Wiki policy on Canvassing? I've done no such thing, and I resent the implication. The simple fact is: the source you're trying to cite doesn't support what you're trying to do with it. It doesn't say "alternative rock", and it only says electronic and industrial "elements". Plus, the source doesn't specify which song refers to which genre. So it's inappropriate to use the source as a citation for three separate articles. And I'd check your demeanour, if I were you. Your phoney 3RR warnings and pointless ANI/Edit warning accusations mean I now have absolutely zero tolerance to any sort of nonsense from your account. The source is inappropriate, so either find a better source, or move on. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * A note of advice for the future. Do you have trouble understanding that there's WP:EDITWAR (which you can be warned/blocked for alone), and there's also violation of WP:3RR (which was not the report, and which will unquestionably lead to a block); plus, there's WP:1RR, just FYI, as you don't seem either aware of such guidelines or are intentionally ignoring them ("I've done no such thing" - you understand that pinging or contacting users with a direct connection to the matter constitutes canvassing?); you also disregard Revert only when necessary. Btw, you should stop engaging in WP:TPNO/WP:TPO; You should not be linking to admin noticeboard reports on talk page of articles by any means, and it is not the place to complain or discuss it. You are aware there are other dispute noticeboards for this and related kind of behavior? You only continue to showcase why you're the subject of disputes. As I said, I will initiate a RfC for other editor input on this matter. A consensus, if there is, on whichever view will be that. --Lpdte77 (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Typical you accuse me of BADFAITH after you accuse me of CANVASSING without posting any evidence.
 * I've had enough of this. As I linked to above in my "ANI/Edit warning accusations" link, there was no 3RR infraction, yet he still says this will "unquestionably lead to a block." This guy has a knack of completely distorting the facts of any given situation. Can some admins please deal with this. This guy has completely harassed and slandered me for the past 3 days and I'm sick of it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As you stated in your recent edit summary here, "Realistic, not bad faith.". "As I linked to above in my "ANI/Edit warning accusations" link, there was no 3RR infraction" - are you following at all? It was not a 3RR report, clearly, as it stated it, it was an Edit Warring report (both are reported at the same place). It is all there, so I don't know why you bother to lie so much. You pinged someone who has direct connection to related matters and might support you, ergo canvassing (and my note here was advising you to not engage in it again). Everything you misleadingly accuse me of you did and foolishly lie about. Harassing you? Hah! You mean the reverts of my copy edits and other edits you systematically made? You mean you making a bad-faith accusation in a revert edit summary of a copy edit I made? You mean you making bad-faith, and irrelevant comments in the noticeboard report? You mean, you repeatedly accusing me (out of all other editors in a page) of being a bunch of random ips? You mean you repeatedly going against me in every talk page discussion? Hah, astounding. Again, an article talk page is not the place to link to or discuss such things. And be my guest, contact admins.  --Lpdte77 (talk) 03:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Interpretation of source quote
As introduced in the above section, the quote from the source: "Control," "Big Bright World" and "Blood For Poppies," which continue in the group's tradition of blending the best of the alternative era with plenty of electronic and industrial elements" . Source states "alternative rockers" in the preceding text, and in the aforementioned quote, describes the three songs as alternative with significant electronic and industrial elements, thereby classifying the three songs as alternative, electronic, and industrial (saying they continue in the group's tradition of blending/incorporating such genres). It is disputed above that the quote is not significant and can't be used cite those genres next to alternative.--Lpdte77 (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Alternative seems good enough. Infoboxes are generally for a minimalistic overview.  The article body can discuss influences, how a band's sound has developed or stayed true, and so on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'd just think since the other two genres are used in the context of alternative, in the context of "blending" such genres, that they are significant enough therefore warrant inclusion next to alternative. Thanks for your input. --Lpdte77 (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)