User talk:Binary TSO/Archive 1

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 ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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) 09:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid Theory's genres
This has been discussed a couple of times already, and there's even a big note there asking for discussion before changing around the genres. Please do. SouperAwesome (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * More reverting with nothing said... Look, I replied on the talk page - twice. SouperAwesome (talk) 11:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Theres no need to add the genre "hip hop" because it is already covered by the "nu-metal" tag. The "rapping over electronic music" bit can be covered by the genre:"rapcore". Add hip hop if you want, but i WILL remove it.


 * I fail to see how hip-hop is covered by nu metal - they are entirely different things. Yes, foremost, the album is nu metal - but it contains very extensive sections of what can only be called hip-hop. Perhaps the very best examples are In the End, By Myself and Forgotten. There is no way you can possibly call the verses in those songs rapcore or nu metal. And again, the hip-hop instrumental Cure for the Itch. Hip-Hop is also backed up by the reviews, like I stated on the album's talk page... You can't simply get rid of it because you don't like it. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Before we continue, elaborate on a few things. 1. How are they entirely different things. 2. "there is no way you can possibly call the verses in those songs rapcore or nu metal", WHY?


 * What? Because nu metal is, well, nu metal, and hip-hop is hip-hop... That's like calling country and new wave the same thing. As for your second question: Because, for one example, they contain no rock elements at all. By the way, I'm moving this to the album's talk page; it's easier there. SouperAwesome (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Shadows Fall
Greetings. I saw you make an edit to the Shadows Fall page so I wanted to invite you to a conversation here about the band's genre. Me and another user have been warring on the page because we can't agree on the genre of the band. I'm not a fan of the band but I think they are purely metalcore. However, the other user seems to think they are thrash metal. So now we're trying to gather consensus and have a vote. If you go to the link I provided feel free to vote whatever genre(s) you think Shadows Fall has played in. Thanks.  Blizzard Beast  ''$ODIN' 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Moshcore
Hello. I see you deleted my addition of "Moshcore" to the metalcore page. Might I ask why? hsxeric (talk) 9PM, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. no citations. 2. Being "closer to hardcore" isnt significant enough to be considered a seperate sub-genre.--SilverOrion (talk) 04:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

used
i didnt say they were scremo, i fixed the article because it shud of always had a genre dispute section due to the confussion over the years, the article ur showing syas bert doesnt want the band to be classified as scremo however many websites have them listed as that and that it why it is in the paragraph. USEDfan (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

used genre
please stop removing half the paragraph of sourced information, removing sourced information could be considered vandalism so i bought it up to an administrator to settle this. USEDfan (talk) 06:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i didnt remove it, i merely changed it to make it more accurate.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

May 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – Zedla (talk) 07:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. – Zedla (talk) 08:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan
You may also want to check out the history of this user's talk page for further warnings, bans and complaints, which they insist on removing. In my opinion this is one reason why it should be policy to archive talk pages and not simply delete posts, it is very easy to hide previous disruptive behaviour like this... For what it's worth, I think that your version is written in a better tone and is less POV than the original. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * of course its written in a better tone, i aint an obsessive fan of the band.--SilverOrion (talk) 07:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

His contributions this time around were not disruptive, and myself and FatalError both expressed how much better it made the article. It's the edit warring, precipitated by your revision that was disruptive. You can read what I have to say at Talk:The Used. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

nouse4name's suggestion
im about to post a new topic on the used talk page go read it cause i think the problem will be settled. USEDfan (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

look at this section of the used talk page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Used#no_use_for_a_name_suggestion

its a third persons opinion and i think it covers both our versions and meets in the middle and i think its good and i hope u would do too we can get the used page unlocked. USEDfan (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * why havent u comment on thi stopic on the used talk page yet? it seems like it coul dsettle the whole dispute. USEDfan (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * why should i? You ignore everything else i say, just like you did to those other people on PS2 articles and GTA.--SilverOrion (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * becaus ethe page is gona be locked until every1 on the talk page reaches an agreement, the page will never stay on the way it is right now so the user nouse4aname made a suggestion tat made it fair to every1 and combined both paragraphs and it is prob better then the 2 previous ones. USEDfan (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

your proposal
we are very close to having an agreement here, go to your proposal section and check out the proposal of the proposal, it may settle the disbute once and for all. USEDfan (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Used
Stop letting your grudge towards the term "screamo" (or whatever the hell your problem is with it) get in the way of USEDfan's contribution. I realize that he isn't exactly the easiest person to deal with, but your edit war with him didn't make it any better. Next time, discuss it in the talk page with him before getting into an edit war and having the article locked. It doesn't matter if you don't agree with the term "screamo" being applied to The Used, I don't either, but your opinion doesn't matter on Wikipedia, the sources do. He found a source labeling them screamo, so let it be. Thanks. -- FatalError 03:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, if I was being biased, I would side with you because you can actually type real English. I'm actually being neutral here. Anyway, that's not the point of the paragraph in the first place. The point, at least of the first sentence (which you obviously had a problem with), was to list all of the genres The Used have been listed as, not what genre The Used actually is. It doesn't matter if the genre is disputed, that's the point of the whole paragraph, to explain the genre dispute. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to defend USEDfan, he is no better than you, but the edit warring was more your fault, as you constantly reverted his edits before settling the argument (yes, I read the talk page). It's not the end of the world if the article has misleading information for less than a week; it's better than having the article locked. I wouldn't have as much of a problem with this as I do if you hadn't still insisted on removing "screamo" from the list even after the page got locked. It's like you never even read his reasoning. Now, again, this is not completely your fault, as I realize USEDfan is stubborn and doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. I'm just saying that next time, talk to the person before making any major changes, and don't put your opinion into your reasoning. Thanks. -- FatalError 22:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for a piece of advice, stop attacking USEDfan, it won't make anything any better. I know he's annoying and stubborn arrogant, but fighting with him isn't going to do anything. Just ignore him. You'll get farther in life that way. -- FatalError 05:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The genres were changed because of the dispute paragraph. Since it's no longer there, we can go back to how it was before. The consensus at the moment, is that we will not bring back the "dispute" paragraph. So it's only fair to change the genres back. You really need to read the talk page. However, I removed screamo from the genres just in case you want to edit war over that again :| So there should be no problem with these changes. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph was removed from the article because it lead to edit wars. It's on the talk page right now, and won't be put back until a consensus has been reached. In the meantime, you're more than welcome to contribute to the discussion. So far, it's been decided that a "dispute" paragraph will not be in the article. Extended discussion can be found here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is the way it was before the dispute paragraph, and it was generally stable. I don't quite get how "Rock" is more neutral than having multiple genres listed. To me, it's more neutral if more views are represented. --Pwnage8 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Still Remains
Hello. I see you deleted the section about Mike Church's cooking show "Cooking With Church." Why so? hsxeric (talk) 9PM, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

i removed it because it is irrelevant.--SilverOrion (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it may not have to do with the band as a whole, but that's why it's in the "Trivia" section. The thing about Bone being in another band really doesn't pertain to Still Remains, but it's there so people can learn more, which is what this site is all about right? hsxeric (talk) 9PM, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yah, a lot of band pages have facts about members that are a lot more personal and abstract. Thanks for understanding. I'm glad we were able to talk this out. hsxeric (talk) 1:20PM, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

August Burns Red
Help me keep this guy from adding death metal to the genre list. You and I both know he's wrong and his links suck. He might as well have put references to MySpace and YouTube. Thanks! -- FatalError 04:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

No, myspace and youtube are user edited sites. MTV, AOL, etc. are far from the same. You two are not the ones that deed sources reliable or unreliable. There are tons of sources out there for my edits. Here is an idea, why don't the two of you tell me a source that is "reliable" and I will use it. You have to understand that you can't remove info and deem every source unreliable simply because you do not like what the source says. Also, could you direct me to the policy that says you can't use online stores to source content on wikipedia? Landon1980 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you didn't notice, this subject has been brought up on WP:ANI, it might be best to put your comments there so more admins see it.  The easiest thing is to ignore it if you really arent a sock, the onus is on the accuser to provide evidence at WP:SSP.  – Zedla (talk) 19:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have replied to the discussion. Whether you believe it or not going around removing sourced content without good reason is vandalism. The burden of discussion is on you. Death metal has been there and is properly sourced. I have seen your behavior on other articles and have drawn the conclusion it is pointless to talk or try and reason with you. My opinion is you actually enjoy edit warring. One source is enough to verify something. More than one of those sources are not online stores. People are going to start reporting you for your disruptive behavior and for violating 3RR as often as you do. Are you trying to get this article locked as well? It will most likely be locked with death metal in use since the article was stable for a lengthy period with it. Your version is the new version. Do you not understand that just because you do not think they are death metal doesn't mean you can remove it? More than one reliable source says they are and that is all that matters. Neither of our opinions is worth squat. Landon1980 (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

MTV is a reliable source, AOL music is a reliable source, allmusic is a reliable source. Therefore stop removing the genre. Those sources are used throughout wikipedia and are accepted. Are you kidding me about violating 3RR only once? I saw a few other articles where you have done that. There is no point discussing this with you, you are an edit warrior. PPl like you do what they want until they are blocked. I have done everything I am required. I cited it with more than one good source. Landon1980 (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Once again, it is pointless to discuss things with you. A quick look at your contributions proves this. The sole purpose of your account seems to be edit warring and blanking content related to bands and their musical genre(s). I can tell when I am wasting my time, and attempting to reason with you is pointless and will get me nowhere. Landon1980 (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.-Andrew c [talk] 13:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll see what I can do. − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. Always here to help. :) − ₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪  kaiden  07:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:what did I do??
Hi - nothing; it was my mistake, which is why I rolled back to your versions. Sorry about this, Vishnava talk 07:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

User:USEDfan
I have started a thread here if you would like to add anything to what I've posted so far. Landon1980 (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that, what exactly does that mean? Is he/she aloud to make another account now or ever? Does that block her IP as well or just the account? I always thought for users to not be aloud to make a new account they must be banned by he community, is that correct? Do you at least think this will stop her for a while? I'm nearly positive we will see socks appear in the near future. You know she won't be able to stay away from the used article. I think that type of obsession is unhealthy lol, don't you? I have favorite bands as well, but I don't live and breathe them like that. Landon1980 (talk) 06:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK thanks. Landon1980 (talk) 06:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The above user has claimed that you are his sockpuppet. I'm a little curious regarding why, if you are the same user, you've never chosen to use capital letters or standard English grammar with your User:USEDfan account.  Are you sure you're really the same person? :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you nuts? You actually believe what she said?--SilverOrion (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Pretty sure he's being sarcastic. ;) I'm so glad he's finally blocked, no more constant edit warring with him. &mdash; Fatal Error  00:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * My bad...This should've been done ages ago!--SilverOrion (talk) 00:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
 * This message has tested positive for sarcasm. He tried to implicate you as his last gasp when he realized that he really was indefinitely blocked this time.  It was pretty funny.  -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Screamo page
hi - saw the Circle Takes the Square article you added to the screamo page -- thanks! That really helps! I tweaked it a bit and added a sentence about how these groups borrow from grindcore -- hope you don't mind. Aryder779 (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Albus Dumbledore
Hi SilverOrion - I'm assuming it was an honest mistake, but you recently removed the 'Fictional gay men' category from the Albus Dumbledore article. Ever since Rowling announced that Dumbledore is gay we've had to deal with a lot of vandalism to that article, but Dumbledore is gay, so the category is appropriate. Cheers, faithless   (speak)  18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * yeah, my bad. I honestly thought it was vandalism.--SilverOrion (talk) 06:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)