User talk:Flyspes

Your recent edits
Hello. 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. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 19:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label, you may be blocked from editing. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * }

Your recent editing history at The Amazing Kornyfone Record Label shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Hiding behind 83.108.133.148 is not helping your case. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions
Hello, I saw the conversation over at MikeWazowski's talk page. Wikipedia can be confusing and frustrating for a new editor. I'm not familiar with the particular article but I do know a decent amount about how to edit on Wikipedia and I'd be glad to help you understand the basics.

The first thing is that Wikipedia does not write about everything. To get information into Wikipedia you first have to have information from a place Wikipedia considers a "reliable source." What that usually means is that you have to hunt down the information in a magazine, book, or newspaper.

The second thing is to slow down. Take a pause before editing the article again. Remember that there's no rush to get anything on Wikipedia. I'll be glad to point you out to resources that will help you figure this place out, but it does take a little time to get oriented here. I'd highly recommend that you start a rough draft or notes page here in you user area. That will give you a way to work on the article, get help or feedback, and polish it up to official standards before moving it to the official article. You can work on a rough draft by clicking on the following link: User:Flyspes/sandbox.

The third suggestion is to check out some of the music projects here on Wikipedia such as WikiProject Music. That will let you meet some other music editors and get ideas and tips from them. Cloveapple (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would also help to not edit-war using both your username and as an anonymous IP - that will get you blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yikes. MikeWazowski is right about that. Edit warring is a big no. ("Edit warring" is Wikipedia slang for seeing who can undo the other person's editing more often.) There is a very firm rule that reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period is not allowed. It's better to just stop reverting and open a discussion on the article's talk page as soon as you realize somebody disagrees with your edit. He's also right that you should never use more than one account. Stick to your named account. Cloveapple (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think MikeWazowski forgot to give you a link to the 3RR notice board where he posted a report about you. If you comment there I'd sugest being polite and acknowledging your share in what happened. Don't panic if a temporary "block" is issued. Just wait it out and then you can get back to learning how to improve the encyclopedia. Cloveapple (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 14:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Per above:   78.26   (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 22:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
78.26  (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 02:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Discographies
Hi Flyspes and thanks for your message. In general, record catalogue listings are discouraged on Wikipedia- the articles are intended to be encyclopedic in tone, giving a broad overview rather than a detailed exposition. In the case of the Pig and TAKRL records they're straightforward recordings of concerts, either off-radio, audience or desk tapes, with little or no creative input from the bootleggers. Discs like "Electrif Lycanthrope" are notable enough to be included. That's my opinion- if you want you could probably find some other editors with a good understanding of the subject and discuss it with them. Contact them via their talk page- click on the (talk) link, then click on new section, add a title and don't forget to sign using four tildes at the end. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello Xanthomelanoussprog and thank you for coming back to me so quick.I am afraid I have to disagree with you on several points  ( sorry) 1. It is a common misunderstanding that bootlegs only consist of live recordings. Most contain unreased studio work which give a unique insight to the working process of an artist. I guess the most famous must be the 2LP which started it all. Bob Dylan "GWW" which later the record company released. 2.Secondly,the purpose of Wikipedia in the digital age is to supply vital information about a record label as printed information get more and more difficult to get. A discography gives the total story of a label.I use Wikipedia all the time to find information about artists and releases for labels. 3.Thirdly,I cant see why the TAKRL and the TMOQ label is less important that other labels with complete discography on Wikipedia. If you start to delete/alter information on these labels then you have to do it with the other labels as well which will upset a lot of people.This is just a matter of principle. If you do it with 1 then you have to do it with all.I will revert your edition based on this. I dont want to get into problems but in all fairness that is the correct thing to do. We owe it to thousand of music collectors who look on Wikipedia for this information

regards

Rune Flyspes Flyspes (talk) 16:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)