User talk:Akdrummer75

User talk:Akdrummer75

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Led Zeppelin, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Mlpearc ( powwow ) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Template:AC/DC. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Edits of this type require Consensus Mlpearc  ( powwow ) 04:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

AC/DC
Hope you don't mind me reverting one or two of your edits here and there - I happen to think you're doing a great job with what you're doing. For too long people were adding all kinds of rubbish as to who played on various songs, and it's nice to see facts with sources. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. I don't mind at all. I realize that you're reverting them for good reasons, and they're actually helping me, because they teach me stuff that I didn't know about Wikipedia editing. Like when I deleted the AC/DC parts where citations were needed. I didn't know you were supposed to wait a while before deleting citation needed parts, so thank you for explaining that to me when you reverted the edits. And AC/DC is my favorite band, so I'm just trying to improve the article and its related pages as best I can. I'm glad you like my work! Again, thank you! Akdrummer75 (talk) 04:42, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, keep up the good work! Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed
Hello Akdrummer75,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at wikifeedcc@gmail.com. We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! MarchionessGrey (talk) 19:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Halo 4
I noticed that you have contributed to Halo 4 in the past and would appreciate any feedback you might have on a recent discussion. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Use Your Illusion I
Can you provide a reliable source for the cocaine claim? All sources I've read agree that he was fired for heroin addiction. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 01:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm well aware that he used cocaine, but I'm still not seeing anything to confirm that he was fired from GNR for anything other than his heroin addiction, which this source confirms. In this source, he says that once he started using heroin "it all went downhill", alluding to the fact that heroin is what eventually got him kicked out of the band. The book Watch You Bleed: The Saga of Guns N' Roses seems to confirm it as well; on page 304 it states (on Sorum replacing Adler) "... and best of all, he (Sorum) wasn't a heroin addict." I have never seen a single good source to confirm that cocaine was what got Adler fired from GNR. ChakaKongLet's talk about it 02:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi there -- RE: The Wall Talk Page, "Nick Mason, no drums?"
Hi, Akdrummer75. I read your argument of June 2012, concerning the difference between "drums" and "percussion". Hell, the post-Waters touring version of "Pink Floyd" had a drummer (Nick) and a "percussionist" (Gary Wallis, I think) who played in a cage, standing and jumping around, surrounded by exotic percussive instruments. Pretty explicit example.

I want to say that you're right about that -- as GabeMc also did -- AND that you're right in your personal assessment of Parrot of Doom's comments. He was being a total sourpuss.

Wikipedia is starting to bother me, because it is an objective FACT that there are (a) stupid people; and (b) total pricks, in this world, yet we're not allowed to say so in either case. Mean-spirited idiots have the same rights we do. In fact, more rights, if they're the kind who can be bitchy without crossing the line (and Parrot of Doom was being exacty that kind of bitch.)

I hope his BS hasn't put you off Wikipedia altogether. Best wishes to you.

--Ben Culture (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Neutral notice
This is a neutral notice that an RfC has been opened at an article which you have edited within the past year. It is at Talk:Clint Eastwood. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

More Parrot Problems
Hey there, Akdrummer75!

Would you believe, I'm having problems with that Parrot of Doom again? He keeps reverting my good-faith (and damn good, I must say) edits to The Final Cut (album), without explanation, and I see he's still insulting people, including me.

[|The Differences between revisions]

Now he's got a friend (or a sockpuppet account, but I don't think so) doing the same thing -- reverting WAY past multiple edits that improved the article, back to the last edit by Parrot of Doom. Clearly, Doom wrote to a friend and asked him to help. The other guy cites WP:BRD (Be Bold, Revert, Discuss), but neither of them are discussing anything. Nor are they really following those guidelines, because those guidelines suggest "revert only when necessary" There's a whole other article about that, WP:ONLYREVERT. So far, neither of them has provided a sensible, plain-English explanation for these reverts. Parrot of Doom even admitted, he's not checking my sources, he's just assuming I'm guilty of something and mindlessly reverting. And the old version they like had a clear anti-Roger-Waters, anti-Final Cut bias, so my edits only tried to balance that out. Everything I added, I cited acceptable sources for. They're just reverting out of bias. So if you have the time, would you please look over the differences and speak up on the Talk page? And, even better, undo a reversion the next time they do one, assuming you think my edit improves the article.

Did you ever report Parrot of Doom like you said you were considering? He is still being verbally abusive, worse to others than to me. Why is he allowed to run around telling people to "shove it" and generally being a WP:DICK?

Thanks for your attention!

Best wishes, --Ben Culture (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2014 (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) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)