User talk:Alex 101/Archive 1

Welcome to this world!
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Mike Garcia | talk 15:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Alex, I was the guy who wrote up all that new article stuff on The Offspring page. You didn't like my titles, which isn't a big deal... but don't get mad if I enhance yours, it isn't ment to be rude... I think it looks betterwith a couple capital letters, it looks less important when the start of subject words are in a lower case. I'm gonna put it back the way I had it, if you don't like it, then in stead of accusing me of vandalism -- write an actual reason. Thanks for your interest.


 * Well, OK. I'm sorry I didn't mean to upset you. I was not mad at you all. Alex 101 02:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not mad, and no longer anonymous -- never thought I would be interested in signing up. I do think it looks better with Capitals on the major words -- also, grammatically it is more correct. These are titles not sentences. I've just been working away on this thing all day. I must say, I was not happy with how little info was on this site when I came upon it a day ago... I've been a fan of this band for 10 years now, and after viewing the one they have built for Nine Inch Nails... I thought this one needed to be redone. Hopefully people will appreciate me completely redoing the biography from scratch -- I think it is 10 times better now.

Bad Religion - Against the Grain
Hi! On every site about BR, including their official, I found that this album was released in 1990 not 1991. Could you show your source of this information or stop reverting my changes? Pietaster 14:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry I didn't mean to keep changing the date to 1991. There are some sources that say that year (including CDUniverse.com, Tower.com, etc.). Also, the year 1991 was printed on the back of the 2004 remastered version. I wasn't only trying to say that it's correct. Again, sorry and I didn't mean to reverting your changes. Alex 101 22:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's ok. Info about the release date problems is in Against the Grain article. After all I think that 1990 is correct year cause it can be found on BR official page and on Epitaph site.

Re: Bad Religion - again
Yeah, it's one of my favourite bands. I'm a fan of punk rock and ska. Some other bands I like are The Clash, Madness, The Mighty Mighty Bosstones and The Pietasters (hence my nick). Pietaster 16:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. Wow, OK. Yeah, punk rock is my most favorite genre of all time. Bands I like other than Bad Religion are: The Offspring, Sick Of It All, Black Flag, Life of Agony (they're metal), Ugly Kid Joe (they're metal, too!), Green Day, Sublime, Dead Kennedys and blink-182. You should probably see my list of favorite albums, if interested, talk to you later my friend! Alex 101 18:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Straight Outta Compton (N.W.A)
Dear Alex, About the release date for this album there has always been a kind of discrepancy. I remember having in late 1988 a copy of that album, Still, it was not legal as it was a tape a friend's older brother copied to me .. whatever, I don't have a copy of the album on CD, just an old tape from 1990 I got in 1995, so I don't have a proof to give you, just my memories.... Still, I can tell you in those days the albums used to be very underground and they were usually found before they were officially launched. I know you think the official launch and release dates are the same, but to give an example, The Chronic was released in early september 1992, but it was launched in late november that same year. The same goes for Straight outta Compton... So it is just a couple of months what we are discussing about. At the light of the proofs you might have your copy which says 1989 while I have a tape that says 1990, in this matters It is you who has the reason... but be BOLD in identifying your sources, because I was listenting to that album When you had not been born (if your personal data is to be believed). To conclude, for now, Let it 1989.

AnD the next time you have something to discuss, PLEASE, use the discussion field for the specific article.

All American Rejects
I explained on one of the talk pages that I rediected them because they were either utterly unencyclopedic, unsourced tripe, or basically just saying "So and so is a memebr of this band" which the redirect makes abundantly clear. A good thing to keep in mind is don't have five articles where one will do. If there is any useful information (DOBs marginally qualify, I guess) it can be mentioned in the band article, which is far from being too long. -R. fiend 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

My copyedits
Are you wiki stalking me (following me around) and removing my correct copyedits? Some people don't know this, but the usage is correct. RJN 06:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't change blink-182 to "blink-182 are" or "Green Day are". Those articles have "blink-182 is" and "Green Day is" and they are correct so I did not change them. If you were to do some research, however, "Green Day are" would be correct in British English (which I don't support). I am a speaker of American English by the way. I am not going to go on a debate about this like I had with 2 other users because it is no longer worth it. Most people do not know how to use collective nouns correctly and they think they should use plural because the name of a band is plural. Whatever their names are, they are still one entity. I hope you will learn this when you get to college. English can be complex and not everyone is familiar with complex rules in the English language. I don't use sloppy English and that was an insult. If you must know, I am a copyeditor of a local newspaper and I had consulted with my former college English professor and she confirmed the usage is indeed correct with regards to bands having plural names (they are still one entity <--- singular). Yes the usage is rather odd to you and some people, but is indeed correct with the rules (most people aren't aware of this). I don't expect you to understand this. There are band articles that I have not touch that use "Nine Inch Nails is," etc. I am not the only one using "sloppy" English as you would say. Very few people know how to use this correctly. Maybe you should consult this with your English teacher once you return to school (if you haven't already done so) and make sure you let them know that these are band names. --RJN 19:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * For example, Williams is a last name. The correct usage would be "Mr. Williams was at the meeting" not "Mr. Williams were at the meeting." Mr. Williams (even though the last name has "s" does not mean it is plural). Mr. Williams is one person or do you argue with me that since his last name has "s" so we should use "Mr. Williams were"? Band names are the same! Not everyone on here know how to write correctly. My usage is no where near "sloppy." I also don't appreciate that you are wiki stalking me on here either. I am not the only person on here that will correct to "XXXXs was" or "XXXXs is". As far as blink-182, it is correct to say "blink-182 is" and I would never change it to "blink-182 are". You are already accusing me of editing articles that I have not because they are already correct. Go ask your English teacher when you return to school. RJN 20:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Let say your name is Alex Adams. If we were you use this in a sentence, it would be, "Alex Adams was a skateboarder" not "Alex Adams were a skateboarder". If you were to form a band and call it "Alex Adams," the sentence would be "Alex Adams is an American rock band" or "The Alex Adams band is from the United States". Do you disagree with this? Do you understand what I am trying to explain to you regarding band names? It is okay for you or anyone to not be familiar with all the rules and usage in English (no one is expected to know all of them and some are very tricky like the case of band having plural names&mdash;yet they are still a single entity and therefore must use singular). Some rules are weird and don't make sense. Remember humans make rules&mdash;they don't have to make sense. Do your own research/look into things closely before you call someone's corrections "sloppy". RJN 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The Communism vandal
Why are those accounts considered the Communism vandals? They follow an atypical username scheme and haven't been used for typical (For him) vandalism. 68.39.174.238 03:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Annihilate This Week.
AMG is contradicting itself because the text in the article itself says 1986. 1990 may have been a reissue date for the CD version as that title first came out on vinyl only in '86. The three songs on it are three songs that first appeared only on the cassette and CD versions of Who's Got The 10 1/2? .--CJ Marsicano 03:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Meat Puppets
Hey Alex, until you learn a bit more about the Meat Puppets, why don't you stay away from editing their page. Don't brand people as "vandals," when trying to clarify that they BEGAN playing music together as a punk rock cover band.

P.S. Way to take articles and pass them off as your own work: http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/columns/the_history_of/the_history_of_meat_puppets.html - See the last comments.

Stop Vandalising
It is my user page and I will keep it however I feel like, refrain from vandalising it please, and I am REVERTING vandalism in said article, the so called "influences" are unfounded, and no links have been provided to back them up, there also does not need to be a list of every single band the group listens to listed, if you continue to harass me and vandalise work on the My Chemical Romance article, it will be you who shall be placed on the vandal page by me. - Deathrocker 03:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

And so are you. Do not lecture me, I have been on this site long enough and I am an adult, I do not need to be advised by a child, now refrain from harrasing me, thank you. - Deathrocker 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

You are "harrasing", who are you to tell me to "prepare for bed", what I do is non of your business, refrain. Your apology is accepted if you STOP now. - Deathrocker 03:26, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR
Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. -- Nacon Kantari  e |t||c|m 03:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have blocked you for violating the Three Revert Rule. However, I have decided to be lenient in this case and block you for only 12 hours rather than the customary 24. You may consider this a warning. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 03:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Bradley Nowell edits
Thanks for the edits on the Bradley Nowell page. Really good job. That page really looks encyclopedic now. I'm really happy about that. Here's what the page looked like before I started editing it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bradley_Nowell&direction=next&oldid=19501022. It looks so much better now: Bradley Nowell. Your recent touches really make it look professional. Thanks again. -- Andrew Parodi 16:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again with the Communism vandal
The account in question User:JtdriI has never edited, so I don't see any suggestion that it's the Communism vandal any more then the "DoppeIganger" vandal. Do you have info I'm lacking? 68.39.174.238 03:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I request proof of your assertion. I've been able to find no suggestion that its them besides the L/I impersonation, which other vandals have used as well. 68.39.174.238 03:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Vandalism in progress/Long term alerts. Making use of the L/I transposition is far from unique to the Communism vandal. With no edits to his account there's no way to tell if it's tCv, this impersonator, someone with a vendetta against them, or just another vandal. 68.39.174.238 03:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Meat Puppets
Please don't use profanity in edit summaries. Also the sentence you added is indeed a bit confusing. I made an attempt to rewrite it. -- Curps 22:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have let the anon upset you... he really should have worked with you to come up with suitable wording instead of just reverting. But I have to say I found the original wording somewhat unclear too (eg, "when he's ever released from prison" sounds like he might never get out... but it's only a 21-month sentence). I rephrased, let me know what you think. -- Curps 22:58, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

According to the Blocking policy, we can't really block over content or editing disputes. Try not to let the other person make you lose your temper, see Civility. If you show your anger to them, they might dig in their heels and become more stubborn (and your anger may make you become more stubborn too). The differences in wording aren't really that major, there ought to be some compromise wording that everyone can accept (it's not like this is an article about Israeli-Palestinian disputes or some other major controversial subject). You can try Mediation to get a neutral person to try to help both sides reach agreement. -- Curps 23:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Threats
When you make threatening wishes, you should really make sure that it isn't your own fault first. --maru (talk) contribs 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:User Green Day
Regarding the logo image in the above template. The logo is being used by wikipedia as 'fair use' (see the tsg on the image page. Fair use images may not be used on userspace or templates per WP:FUC. Please read this policy, and ensure you do not insert any fair use images in violation of its terms. Thanks. --Doc ask?  16:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do not reapply 'fair use' images to user boxes. If you persit, you may be blocked. --Doc ask?  23:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Ac/Dc
Alex, you misunderstood what was meant by redirect on the AfD page. The AC/DC (album) article is the work of a vandal; it contains speculation mixed with nonsense. It should be deleted. The redirect from Ac/Dc, as requested, should be to AC/DC, the band page. (Otherwise I or someone else would simply have moved the page long ago.) Could you please fix this, by deleting AC/DC (album), and by making Ac/Dc redirect to AC/DC. Thanks. ProhibitOnions 00:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing this. Looks like I mistook you for an admin. Guess that's a compliment of sorts... Regards, ProhibitOnions 12:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Please do not simply recreate material which has been deleted. If you disagree with the deletion of a template or of any other material on Wikipedia, you should ask for a Deletion review. Continued recreation of material is a waste of everybody's time and so is considered disruptive. Keep up the rest of your good work on WikiProject Albums :) Physchim62 (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Matisyahu 'Vandalism'
Vandalism is a strong word. I, Knotgoblin, made the edit to Live at Stubb's and  Youth. Sorry, for not being loggin in. I was on another computer and forgot that I was not logged in.

If you are familiar at all with Matisyahu, Youth is his third album. That can obviously be seen by look at his discography. Youth may not be his third studio album but it is most certainly his third album. To say that it is his second is incorrect and would misinform some one that would be reading that article. If you would like say that it is his second STUDIO album that would be correct.

You can't ban someone for making an edit to a page. That is how Wiki works.

Thanks, Knotgoblin 22:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * A live album is still an album. If someone that knows nothing about Matisyahu is reading that article they would be misinformed.  Live at Stubb's is an official release (not a bootleg), so it is an album. Knotgoblin 22:59, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Violation
Regarding Template:User Bad Religion you have again used a 'fair-use' image in a userbox. You have been warned twice already and are paying no heed. Please review WP:FUC over the next three hours whilst you are blocked. On returning, please abide by it. If you are in doubt about the policy or about an image, then refrain from inserting images into wikipedia's templates or userspace. --Doc ask?  23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Same goes for Template:User Green Day. When you return, please remove any other non public-domain images you have inserted into user or article space. --Doc ask?  23:22, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Arrogance
How dare you casually call me a vandal, especially with as many edits?! You're over your head in threats, little teenybopper boy. I will assume that if you delete this, you do not have the balls to speak and just have a false sense of authority. Leave me the fuck alone, or discuss on the talk page your changes. Come on and justify that The Offspring do not use elements of thrashcore! 68.110.9.62 15:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He just pulled the same stunt with me. I deleted one of his erroneous and nonsensical subimissions and he reverted it as "vandalism." If he keeps this sort of thing up, soon we won't have to worry about him anymore. Druff 02:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * This guy has been doing this for some time now. Check out the talk page for Meat Puppets for more examples.