Talk:Epicenter (music festival)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Epicenter (music festival). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120311062007/http://rockontherange.com/epicenter/docs/Epicenter_PressRelease_6.21.pdf to http://rockontherange.com/epicenter/docs/Epicenter_PressRelease_6.21.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

The new Epicenter Festival
I was just noticing that this page represents the former Epicenter Festival that took place in Southern California. A new Epicenter Festival was recently announced for Rockingham, North Carolina several months from now. I feel that this page should either represent the former festival that went by this name or the new one. But a decision needs to be made and soon. --Skeeball93 (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this covers both. --evrik (talk) 02:20, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability
After more than ten years, I think we can take the notability tag off of this. --evrik (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not think so. All of the sources are clearly associated with the subject or are passing mentions. No in-depth coverage. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I take it back, other than the press-releases, we have three:, and . Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I clearly started a discussion here on the notability tag. You then went and reverted the seven other edits I made on formatting and content. I will address each of these separately. Several times now, you have added the notability tag back onto this article after I have removed it. It's been more than ten years, if you think the artilce is not notable, then please AFD it and be done with it. --evrik (talk) 20:36, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You did clearly start the discussion here and then proceeded to unilaterally decide that consensus was achieved. You then went and made multiple edits, of which I only saw the last. I did not restore the tag so perhaps you could stop casting aspersions and look at what happened. Sorry for the broad comment on your talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus? This is not a major article, nor should this be controversial. I went and updated the article, and added more sources. Clearly, this should be self-evident. --evrik (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So you get to determine whatever you want. Sure. That's how Wikipedia works. You've been reverted on it so I'd say it's controversial. Clearly you should read WP:CONSENSUS again and show me where your name is the exception to the rule. Again, discussion is key here. You started the discussion then it appears you decided that your opinion was correct and acted on it before anyone could respond. I bet you're just a blast when WP:BRD comes into play. Either way don't respond trying to justify your actions as I believe I understand why you did what you did, and in this case you were barely correct. As for an AfD don't be a META:DICK. It's not necessary to prove that this is of questionable notability. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So, now you are making ad hominem attacks. So much for WP:BRD. --evrik (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I? Sorry. No, I just get that you think you're right. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a reason you know META:DICK so well. In any case, since you're not going to AFD this article, we're done here. --evrik (talk) 03:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it so well because I saw it applied to an editor just like you once and I remembered it. I wish you were done here, but you continued below. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Date formats
I fail to understand, that when MOS:DATEUNIFY says that a numeric format is acceptable, and MOS:DATEFORMAT says that a numeric format is acceptable, that anyone thinks that a numeric format is unacceptable? Especially when used with the Use mdy dates template which converts all the numbers to a visible month-day-year format. Please explain. --evrik (talk) 20:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Because they're being displayed that way anyhow. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that you're exerting personal preference, and not actually policy. --evrik (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read MOS:INDENTMIX I fixed this one.
 * Please read what I wrote. You already know how it displays and it would be confusing for other editors to be looking for a MDY format and then find an ISO-8601 date instead. If you have questions, try clicking on the history to see what your preference looked like. If you insist on using ISO-8601 dates because you prefer it, take it to an RfC. WP:DATEUNIFY.
 * Also, WP:DATERET applies as the date formats were applied to the references for two years before you decided to change them without discussion or even an edit summary explaining either that you changed the format or why, but then I've already learned you create your own consensus. Of course, you're also not fond of edit summaries in general. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Using Use mdy dates converted all the numeric dates into the proper format (what people could see). So, as i said before, you either don't know the policy as well as you think, or you are using policy to justify personal preference. --evrik (talk) 03:17, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I know it quite well. You are using your personal preference to avoid the manual of style. in short, you changed an established format to your personal preference and the established format was restored. No reason to keep your personal preference over the established, unified format. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're not actually making sense. --evrik (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure I am. The date format is correctly applied based on several guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, I correctly applied the date format as stated above and you can't unilaterally change it without consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Personal preferences is not policy. The only policy you are applying is WP:Own and WP:Dick. --evrik (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I say to you. Look at the history of the article. There was no unified format until I applied it per MOS:DATETIES. That's not personal preference, it's a guideline. Then you decided to change it without discussion because it's your personal preference when editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Walter Görlitz, personal preference is not an acceptable reason. Make you a deal, you admit that your edit warring like behavior is due to your personal preference, and I will stop trying to make sense to you. --evrik (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly. So stop applying your personal preference. I showed you how the date format of mdy was applied. I showed you how it appropriate to apply per NATTIES. It has remained until you decided to apply your personal preference and that violates DATERET. I don't know why you keep applying your preference and insinuating that I'm doing something wrong. How is it that you think I am applying my personal preference? Recognize that I prefer ISO-8601 for date formats, and apply dmy to "international" articles and mdy to US articles based on ties. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)