User talk:Hoponpop69/Archive 1

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Chet nc contribstalk 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you for experimenting with the page Lake Titicaca on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -- Chet nc contribstalk 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy against vandalism. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Note to sysops&#58; Unblocking yourself should almost never'' be done. If you disagree with the block, contact another administrator.'' - Darwinek 18:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This is unjust and unfair, the category that I made was in no way vandalism! I would like to appeal this banning. My categorie was intended for a way for people to find silly names that they might find humorous, and is much more relevant than other categories such as "living people". Alos if you look into my history you can tell that I am not a vandaliser, and have made amny positive contributions to various pages.

Lake Titicaca
Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Lake Titicaca. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox.

Also, technically, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's three revert rule. Please, if you haven't done so, undo your reverts to the article to avoid disciplinary action. -- Chet nc contribstalk 18:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Mark Kennedy
Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing. Andjam 01:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use an edit summary, especially about a section that's the subject of contention. Thanks, Andjam 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Elliott Smith
Hello, please refrain from taking "Rock" out of Smith's genre's. Rock is a broad category that easily encompasses songs of Smith's such as "Son of Sam", "A Question Mark", "LA", "Shooting Star" and he even had an unreleased track called "Some (Rock) Song". DO NOT take this genre out again without putting forth a good rationale on the talk page and reaching consensus with the other editors of this article who recently brought it to Featured status. I could even dig up a quote from Smith stating that people often forgot that he still enjoyed playing "Rock" songs in his solo career. OK? - Phorque 11:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

High Pitch Eric
Thanks for your work on the High Pitch Eric article. I think the article has been improved, but it still lacks sources and a formal tone. Please don't remove those tags until we fix the problems. --Bill.matthews 03:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Playboy
Thank you for contributing to the article on Playboy magazine. I reverted the edit though because of the consensus that has been reached on the talk page regarding adding celebrities to the list in the article. Dismas|(talk) 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for partially reverting vandalism on my userpage, and I'm sorry you got warned for it.  If Patstuart would actually look at the diffs, he would see that you weren't vandalizing. --Michael WhiteT&middot;C 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to User:Deathrocker
Thank you for removing the content you added yourself. However, please don't repeat this kind of action in the future; it could be interpereted as a personal attack. If you are having a dispute with this user, try sorting it out on an appropriate talk page. Thanks, Dar-Ape 17:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a user's page, as you did with User:Deathrocker, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Irongargoyle 20:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalise my talk archive genius, you have been warned four times already regarding this, writing "fucking asshole" falls under a personal attack, you will be reported and banned. -Deathrocker 23:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack warning
With regards to your comments on Aiden: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this in mind while editing. Thanks. Gwernol 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
Thanks for your contribution to Tré Cool, you did a really great job.--Jude 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop
Please refrain from deleting an entire page of info on the RHCP article. I have been, and will continue to, revert your deletion. If you decide to persist, this matter will be taken up with higher authority. NSR77 19:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Jack Sherman did not form the Band. He merely was the chosen guitarist. He had no say in whether or not the band came-together. NSR77 23:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It is also suffice to say that informing the reader the band was formed in Los Angeles is worthy of remaining. I made a few touch-ups to my intro paragraphs to 'suit your needs'.

Green Day versus Sweet Children
You're alterations to the Green Day page have all been obvious improvements. I can explain the specific alterations I made to the language of the history easily enough, but my substantiating it is another matter.

There is a general assumption (partially a natural conclusion and partially due to misinformation) that Green Day began as Sweet Children. In fact, Sweet Children was not a band in the sense that Green Day was. They did not record. they did not tour. They performed only nominally and they had only two regular members. John Kiffmeyer was never a part of this supposed band. A fact lost to time was that Kiffmeyer was the original front man for Green Day. He brought the connections to the punk scene. He handled all the business. The original mailing address for the band was John's El Sobrante home address. It was his band and he was in charge of it. Billie alludes to as much in an interview with Larry Livermore. Kiffmeyer formed Green Day when he and Jason Beebout (now of SamIam) had an ugly falling out (as is typically the case, over a girl) which led to the break up of their band, Isocracy. After this fiasco, he wanted a band that he could control. My knowledge in this matter is based on first hand personal experience as I was present in Rodeo for the early Sweet Children days, and at Contra Costa College during the break up of Isocracy and the formation of Green Day.

So I assume you would see why this is difficult for me to substantiate. Very little of that early history is recorded. Because of this, I have endeavored to keep the language unspecific, and leave out the majority of "original research". This is why the version you altered specifically avoided mentioning that the two bands were not the same, yet also avoided any confirmation that they were. It was a middle ground, met through trial and error. personally, I would prefer reverting the paragraph back to what it was. It avoids the dissemination of what I know is misinformation, without resorting to what is arguably non-verifiable. Your call at this stage.Theplanetsaturn 23:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the Billie Joe Armstrong page, You asked: "Does this wording work better for you?" Yes it does. And I thank you for your patience and consideration on this.Theplanetsaturn 18:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't we go over this already? Livermore's story is borderline mythical. A party in the snowy mountains where even the host was absent and no power? So the band played off of a generator? It's false. Kiffmeyer was never in Sweet Children. He was the primary force behind the formation of Green Day after he and Jason Beebout had a falling out (due to John's ex girlfriend Kara). These are the facts that history has not recorded as was often the case in the pre-internet days). Obviously, without evidence to support this I have left these aspects out and endeavored to word the article so that either history can fit. The name as a definitive reference to marijuana is not supported by the source. Not properly anyway. of course it should be included, but it should be described as "allegedly".Theplanetsaturn 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you're relying on original research. As far as Larry Livermore goes what reason would he have about lying? Especially about something as trivial as the band changing their name. According to him John was in the band when they were known as Sweet Children, and Sweet Children was the same band as Green Day. Hoponpop69 03:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No... I'm clearly not relying on original research because I am not including my original research in the article. I am suggesting the usage of unspecific terminology. There is a distinct difference. According to Livermore they also broke into a house that was diificult to reach because of snow in an area that rarely sees such weather and played a show using a generator. It's a story that borders on myth, and I doubt he was serious at all when he forwarded it. Why did Billie once say the band was from Oakland? They weren't. It's the entertainment industry. Truth isn't exactly required. Again, we went over this a year ago. Why bring it all up again now?Theplanetsaturn 04:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reposting things in my name in places I did not intend them to be said. I don't appreciate you taking our relatively private conversation and making it public. I've always had respect for you as a Wikipedia editor. But the way you are treating this matter seems out of character compared to our previous interactions.Theplanetsaturn 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Private? Anyone can access this talk page! I'm sorry if you felt that I disrespected you, I assumed that if you posted here you wouldn't have a problem with it being posted on the articles talk page. All I was trying to do was to get more voices into the conversation to help develop some consensus. Now what's left on the talk page makes no sense because there is no context. I'm not sure if I even need your permission because since you already posted it here it probably belongs to wikipedias domain, but could I revert that talk page? If you don't want me to I'll just talk to you here.

Read the source, he says there was "some snow on the roads", some snow on the roads is not a one in a million thing to have in the winter in Northern California. . As far as saying there from Oakland that's pretty common among bands saying they come from the nearest city instead of the town they're from that no one's ever heard of. When did he say this, recently or back when you knew them during the Gilman scene? I'm asking this because during the promotion for Warning he said on the Howard Stern Show that he currently lived in Oakland.

The interview with Larry appears to be a reliable source. You claiming that he is lying because you know first hand that GD and SC where two different bands does qualify as original research.Hoponpop69 06:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The key word is "relatively". Yes, anyone can access your talk page. But very few people will, in comparison to where you reposted my statements. That said, I understand you meant no offense and I am sorry I took any.Theplanetsaturn 06:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again
You need to realize that I have attempted to fit your needs. You are making revisions that are not correct. Jack Irons did not form the band along with Anthony, Flea and Hillel. None of them are Point of Views, as I am taking every single aspect from Scar Tissue. I took out any minor hints of PoVs that might have remained.

You also need to stop reverting every single edit I make to your incorrect information. Now.NSR77 01:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I took it out. :)

Mantown
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Wknight94 (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alt Press
I am curious about your change to the Alternative Press article. You removed the quote and said it was advertising. I will admit the "In the words of the magazine:" was a bit much and was put in after I fixed the quote. I do not however think it is adgvertizing and am tempted to put it back. No where does it say "Call 1-800-###-#### to subscribe for $9.99". It gives a fairly accurate history and makes the article MUCH more neutral when it is openly attack right under it in the critisms section. No one takes out ""Fair and Balanced" and "The Most Powerful Name in News" from Fox News because the news source speaks highly of itself. Dark j  e  di requiem  05:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe what's best is to move it to the talk page, and have people discuss it for a while there, and than decide? Dark j  e  di requiem  06:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Edits to punk rock
I dismissed it as vandalism at first, but as it's you I may have been wrong. You edited the lead paragraph on the punk rock article to give the article a US-centric bias, belittling the role of the UK and totally removing the role of Australia in the formation of punk rock, which went against both consensus and the cited sources (oe of which you removed). Any reason, or was it a mistake, or was it vandalism after all? --Switch 09:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As the person who added the reference in question I would also be interested in hearing the answer. Grant65 | Talk 12:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of book cover in Green Day
Hi, Hoponpop69. Book covers like Image:Greendaybook.jpg should only be used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question". Using Image:Greendaybook.jpg as the main image of the article on Green Day goes against this rule. And adding a line of text about the book doesn't chages it.

Please note that book covers are copyrighted images and we can't use them for anything we want just because they are "better" than what we currently have. Wikipedia takes copyright issues very seriously.

Also, as Wikipedia's goal is to create free content, the use of unfree (copyrighted) material is very restricted here. For instance, our policy on unfree material, called WP:FUC, says that we can only use unfree material when "no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". For an image of the band Green Day, some free alternatives already exists and others could obviously be created (someone could take pictures in a show). So, for the matter, we can't use unfree material (like book covers) at all on the Green Day article.

I'm removing the book cover image once more and I expect you not to reinsert it again.

If you still have any doubts, just drop me a note. Best regards, --Abu Badali 21:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Jerry Seinfeld
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — B33R Talk • Contribs 13:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Cockshiner
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create such pages will be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Thank you. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Pnatreeatoppsy.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Pnatreeatoppsy.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Media copyright questions. 01:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject The Offspring
Hello. Would you be intrested in joining a new project I just created? If so, just go directly here. I am also looking for other members who would like to join, even when they like punk rock or that they are just a musician. Alex 02:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Greendaypublicityphoto.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Greendaypublicityphoto.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Normmacdonald.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Normmacdonald.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Yamla 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --AshadeofgreyTalk 16:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --FreeKresge 16:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Nlu (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:FU violation
WP:FU prevents us from using a fair-use image solely to depict a living person even if we have no readily available replacement. I've already pointed you at this policy page but you violated it again today with your edit to Norm MacDonald. Please take the time to read this policy before making future such edits. Continuing to violate Wikipedia policy may be grounds for a block. --Yamla 23:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I'm kind of confused, I thought that because it was an album cover, it was clearly stated that it was okay. What am I missing? Thank you."


 * No, an album cover may only be used to depict the album. We are not permitted to use fair-use images at all to depict living people, as per WP:FU.  So we aren't even permitted to use copyrighted promotional images of that person to depict them (unless the image is released under the CC or GFDL or some such).  --Yamla 00:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More fair use problems
I have deleted Image:Timmurray.jpg as you had tagged it as a TV station logo, which is clearly an incorrect fair use tag. Please try to be more careful in selecting appropriate tags for images you upload. Thanks, Gwernol 23:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, but please don't use this image on the Tim Murray article. This image may only be used to illustrate an article about the TV program that this is taken from. Gwernol 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That image can't be used on the Clay Aiken article. I've removed it. Thanks for pointing that out. Gwernol 00:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

California punk scene
Just thought I'd pop by to say well done for this article. Very good. I'm currently working through the Fat Wreck Chords cat to get all the album articles up. Bubba hotep 09:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Trecoolphoto2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trecoolphoto2.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok  ☠  17:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Blocked
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. .

Even though you created this article in November 18, 2006, you have been warned numerous times about our No personal attacks policy and have previously been blocked for violating it. However, since you were first informed of this policy, you have made no effort to remove or revert this attack page, so I am blocking you from editing for 1 week to reinforce the fact that Wikipedia has zero tolerance towards personal attacks. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Mikedirnt69.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Mikedirnt69.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add , without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Abu Badali 14:49, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not restore unsourced biographical content
Hello Hoponpop. Regarding your recent edits to the Billie Joe Armstrong article, please do not replace biographical content without providing reliable sources along with your changes. Please read this email by Jimmy Wales in this regard. Thank you, Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Featured articles
In this edit, you removed 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) from the list of featured articles, even though it is indeed a featured article. Why did you do this ? What surprises me most is that it looks like you have been unblocked just a few hours ago, and this edit looks dangerously close to vandalism... Schutz 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like a good answer to this. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)