User talk:Hoponpop69/Archive 3

Reponse about Punk rock article
In response to your question on my talk page, I agree that there are too many redlinked bands in the punk rock article. In some sections, there is too much name-dropping of obscure bands and not enough substance. However, I have taken that article off my watchlist and will not be editing that article (at least for now) due to the "ownership" problem that prevents  any significant cleanup of that article. Spylab (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

By ownership problem do you mean User:DCGeist?Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Affirmative. Spylab (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about?
I'm sorry but i honesty don't know any skaterrocker. I'm not sure how you could confuse me for being him. Plese show me how i'm like that person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockismorethanmusic (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, all my evidence is listed at Suspected sock puppets/Skateremorocker(2nd).Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chevelle
Hi, how are you? You recently added a citation needed template to Chevelle's genre infobox. Genres usually do not need to be sourced, unless it is discussed on the talk page first. Sorry for the confusion. Cheers. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Bergis prank calls
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Mr. Bergis prank calls, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment invited
As an occasional past editor at Template:United States presidential election, 2008, your comment is invited at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008 -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Cenarium (talk) 17:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you want your own sandbox ? In this case, you can create a subpage. -- Cenarium (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your message on User talk:TheFireStillBurns.
There are official warning templates. The sentence "this is your first warning" doesn't cut it. When encountering editors who make these kinds of edits, please explain to the editor what he or she is doing wrong and link to the relevant policies/guidelines. If he ignores your advice, you can start using warning templates. They can be found here. Please use them from now on. Tim meh  !  22:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Template discussion
As an occasional editor to the discussion at Template:United States presidential election, 2008 your input would be appreciated at Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008. Thank you.-- S  TX  04:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Warped Tour 2007
I have nominated Warped Tour 2007, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Warped Tour 2007. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Jmlk 1  7  06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do.  Neil N   talk  ♦  contribs  19:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Anberlin's genre
Hi, I noticed you were involved in the previous discussion about Anberlin's genre (specifically the Christian rock genre), and I just wanted to let you know that the matter has resurfaced again. I just wanted to invite you to take a look at the article's talk page and leave a comment sharing your ideas, views, suggestions, etc. Thanks! —Mears man (talk) 03:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Flyleaf edit war
I have noticed your edits on the Flyleaf article and would appreciate it if you source your genre changes with a citation that is agreed upon by the users on the Talk page. Please join the conversation if you have an opinion or a useful change, but do not become rude or unpleasant, and please assume good faith in accordance with Wikipedia policy. This subject was a matter of discussion several months ago and was put to rest successfully. I hope we can do so again. Jparenti (talk) 12:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as "mindless edits" go, try reading the Talk page before reverting edits. What I have done is put the article back the way it was before this issue became a problem again. The genre issue was resolved a while back, and I'm tired of having it drug up every other month. And assume good faith. I don't like nasty comments, and I'm sick of getting them. Jparenti (talk) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know where to start on how wrong your argument is.Hoponpop69 (talk) 06:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Try it anyway. Go to the Talk page for the article, and share your opinion.  And try doing it in a civil manner for a change.  Calling anyone a "self hating Christian" or calling anyone blind or stupid or whatever will get you blocked.  Rapidly.  An admin has already been called in on this.  How much farther does this ridiculous edit war have to go before it can be discussed reasonably?  Jparenti (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Arg at YOU!
You've messaged my regarding changing cited content on the Flyleaf page. I would like to state that someone else changed the cited information, I changed it back to its original state. I'm not attacking you, just stating that. I want the rediculous genre war on that page to stop as much as you do! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomozaurus (talk • contribs) 06:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

2 comments from your user page
The walmart source you speak of says they are alternative rock. Click on the CD and look half way down the page, you will see alternative rock. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyleaf 833 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 28 February 2008

You said for me to list my sources, I am new to wikipedia. How do I do it properly, like to make them where you can click on them and go to the article? Also, how many do you wish for me to list? 10? 20? 50? 100? Dwrayosrfour (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

ONE THING FOR CERTAIN IS NONE OF THOSE SOURCES MENTION CHRISTIAN ROCK
My argument is that they are not a Christian rock band. I said many times they are always classified as alternative rock, heavy rock, alternative metal, etc., etc., etc. One thing for certain is pretty much NO ONE but you considers them Christian Rock. Like I told you, I can present you with 37 more sources that prove them NOT to be Christian Rock. I can find several dozen more if you would like. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

How can I explain this in a way that you'd understand, the three sources I listed DO list them as that. No matter how many source you find that list them as something else (and so far you've found no more sources listing them as one certain genre than I have) it doesn't cancel this out. If you want to discuss this further do it on the article talk page and not here.Hoponpop69 (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

SEVEN MORE SOURCES FOR YOU TO TRY AND EXPLAIN AWAY
See Flyleaf Talk Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

With your perfect vision you should have realized I never said it was the link you provided. I said it was VH1. Your argument cannot stand to weaken any more. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 04:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Stop with your falsities, and for the last time post in the discussion not here!Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My falsities? Show me where I said it was the source you provided. I merely said it was VH1. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

From here on in I will not respond to you unless you post on the articles talk page and not here.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

What you need to realize is I couldn't possibly care less if you respond to me or not. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your recent edit
Hey, i just wanted to let you know that your edit on Reliable sources/Noticeboard stated that there was a dispute about Anberlin's genre. I believe you meant "Flyleaf" so I took the liberty in changing it. I hope that's what you meant. --Pbroks13 04:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what I meant, thank you.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:57, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Flyleaf
Hey, I've asked a question on the article talk page about the possibilities of including both genres, though probably with alternative rock as the primary genre. Please weigh in with your thoughts. In the meantime, would you care to explain the comment left on Jparenti's talk page that you signed as Dwrayosrfour? GlassCobra 19:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't try to deceive anyone. I simply moved a comment that Dwrayosrfour had mistakenly left on User:Jparenti to his talk page.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's fine, it merely looked suspicious. As for your comment on my talk page, I do not believe I recall accusing you of refusing to acknowledge that Flyleaf is alternative rock. Could you please point to where I said this? GlassCobra 02:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You didn't accuse me of anything, I was refering to the commenter above you.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for any misunderstanding that has occurred over this. I was not aware that that could be done, and it looked relatively strange to me, so I was curious.  The user's reply also cast doubt upon it.  I certainly didn't mean to accuse you of any wrongdoing.  Jparenti (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Listen, I agree with your standpoint; however, I must stress that throwing out names like "retard" and "ignoramus" are completely and utterly counter-productive, and I will block you if I catch you doing it again. We will achieve consensus eventually; until then, the article is in no real danger. Name calling is totally unnecessary, so I would appreciate if you would go back and amend your comments. GlassCobra 02:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to add "blind" "ignorant" and "self-hating Christian" to the many names he has called others. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 03:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoponpop, we are still waiting for you to remove the personal attacks from your comments on Talk:Flyleaf. GlassCobra 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You have my permission, remove it yourselves.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Family Force 5 Genres
I want to point out something about the "unsourced" information you removed here. The genre you removed is sourced in the Musical Style section of the Article. citations do not belong in the infobox, and the infobox is only intended to have information that is already in the article. If you don't have any complaints, I will add it again. --Axcess (talk) 08:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not a valid source because it is first party information. Furthermore please show me where it says you can't put citations in infoboxs.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ugh.... You're right... I hate being wrong. I have a problem with it just saying rapcore, because family force 5 is so much more than that... but i guess I will have to do more research. As for citations in infoboxes, I've picked up the idea from other editors, which would imply some sort of general consensus, I have read on several talk pages that Infoboxes should only repeat information that is already someplace in the article. If the information is already cited in the article itself, and once a fact has been presented and cited it does not need to be cited again when it is revisited elsewhere.--Axcess (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RJA
Just a note, I added all those genre citations a few months ago in the RJA article in an attempt to reduce genre edit-warring among anons. It didn't work. Honestly, the genre designations seem to be doing very little to improve the article, and some editors have made the case that genre sourcing is all just original research, anyway. In any case, vandalism to the page has quieted down enormously since I removed my own citations. Chubbles (talk) 00:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't withhold sourced information because it is more convenient for you. Besides if there is that big a problem with people removing information get the page locked.Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wait, I think you misunderstood my post. I added all the sourced information. I am now proposing that it be removed because it constitutes Original Research on my part. Chubbles (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding References
I will gladly provide references for my edits upon request. Almost everyone knows that Family Force 5 is considered "crunk" by the band members (google some of the interviews. I'll try and find a couple in a few minutes), not "hardcore". Cheers. user:SuperDMChan 15:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC0

Family Force Five
I have reverted your recent edit. If you wish to include Christian Rock in the infobox add a source for it. 75.125.166.49 (talk) 17:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Thread on AN/I
FYI. A thread has been started on AN/I about recent comments on Talk:Flyleaf. --Onorem♠Dil 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Block
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text below.

The evidence at shows an intolerable attitude towards fellow editors. When you return, do not make such remarks to others or else you may be blocked indefinitely next time. Jehochm a n ❤ 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you want I couldn't possibly care less. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 23:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

August Burns Red
I started a disscution on August Burns Red being a alternative rock band. go on to their disscution page. thank you.Rockismorethanmusic (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia
You're clearly new here, as you don't know how to sign the messages you leave on others' Talk pages. You do so by including four of those little squiggly things, you know, "~," at the end of your message. You can do that efficiently by clicking on them in the handy toolbox just below the edit window. Cheers! Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 23:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't patronize me.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hee-hee! You leave me a "Welcome to Wikipedia" template and then wail about being patronized? You giggle me, Hopsy.—DCGeist (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude that was what the default personal attack message said from Template messages/User talk namespace. I checked and what you wrote was not the default message for not leaving signatures, you went out of your way to type a message that patronized me.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hoponpop, do not give other people personal attack messages when you yourself stated, "Don't patronize me jerk." It doesn't matter if you removed it, you intended to say it, and I would be a little more careful with word choice if I were you, seeing your edit history. Tim  meh  !  00:36, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41 and User talk:Timmeh
In regards to the genre of Sum 41: 's edits aren't vandalism -- they're a content dispute. Don't put vandalism warnings on Timmeh's talk page if you disagree with his edits. Talk it out on the article talk page. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I never said he was vandalising, I said he was removing content, which he was doing.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Your personal attack against me
No need to attack me by doing things like typing in all caps as you did to the word explicit, that was clearly you trying to be funny, or whatever you want to call it. We both know that was a little joke of yours that was intended to be patronizing towards me. Dwrayosrfour (talk) 06:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack Again
Please refrain from making personal attacks like you did here Dwrayosrfour (talk) 07:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Flyleaf genre resolution
Please see Talk:Flyleaf. I expect everyone that was involved to refrain from any edit warring, and I further expect you personally to absolutely refrain from any name calling or personal attacks, which go directly against the spirit of collaboration that makes up the heart of this project. Please view this as your final warning. Thanks. GlassCobra 08:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sum 41
I have told you several times that if you wished to discuss the matter, to do it on the talk page. You ignored me and continued to reply on my talk page. After I asked you to discuss it on the talk page again, you didn't. So I reverted back to my revision, since I had to assume that you did not care because you did not discuss it on the talk page. And you STILL are refusing to discuss it further. You are not giving any valid reasons why you think your versions are better than mine. I have pointed you to the guidelines and policies, showed you my reasoning, and asked if you wished to discuss it further, but you still keep reverting to your version without explanation. I am getting very tired of this and unless you discuss this in a civil manner, your edits will be considered vandalism. Tim meh  !  20:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright lets have a dialouge right now. Explain again why you think you're version is better.Hoponpop69 (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to explain it again. Take a look at my talk page and reply on the Sum 41 talk page. You've been told by at least two people to discuss the matter on the Sum 41 talk page not on mine or yours. Tim  meh  !  23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know, timmeh is reverting your edits because he thinks you and I are the same person. Landon1980 (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Where'd he get that idea?Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Not real sure. He has been accusing me of being you for a week now, every IP he sees he calls them you. Talks about how many problems he has had with you, and that we behave in a similar fashion. Says you are using your IP to sway consensus on Flyleaf over to your side, being making alternative rock the genre in the lead. Landon1980 (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's really not very nice to make false accusations, Landon. I never said anything about Hoponpop. I just said I was suspicious of something on Talk: Flyleaf. That's a pretty big stretch saying I'm reverting Hoponpop's edits because I think you and him are the same person. Even if I did believe that, I would not revert anyone's edits without a good reason for example: vandalism/banned user/edit warring. "Every IP he sees he calls them you". So you're saying I'm accusing him of controlling hundreds of IPs just in the last month? I stated that YOU [Landon] were using an IP to sway consensus, which was proven by a checkuser. I said nothing about Hoponpop. Please check your facts before making further accusations against other editors. Otherwise, you will surely be blocked. Tim  meh  !  14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Are yousure you never did this? All checkuser proved is that I logged in from that IP on three occasions, it isn't aganst policy for my brother to have an opinion on something I am involved in. If you will look you will see that a couple of times during that discussion I accidentaly signed an IP and immediately logged in and signed my name to the comment. Why do you threaten people with blocks? You do realize you aren't an admin right? You act as if being blocked on here is life threatening, and will be the end of someone. This is wikipedia, it is a small part of my life. I feel sorry for you. Landon1980 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't threaten people with blocks. I was just warning you that continued incivility will get you blocked. You need to learn the difference between a warning and a threat. How have I acted as if being blocked is life threatening? You are the one refusing to discuss the genre delimiter problem on Nickelback while hoponpop is refusing to discuss the Sum 41 issue. You have been incivil several times. Checkuser proved that you were engaged in abusive sockpuppetry. If what you tell me is true, I would suggest that your brother create an account for himself to avoid this problem in the future. But then why did you say "I logged in from that IP" if your brother was making those comments? Also, I am allowed to change my opinion of something if there is new evidence. I didn't ask for a checkuser to be done on Hoponpop69; I asked for one to be done on you. In that accusation, I was proven correct and you were warned about abusive sockpuppetry. Now, will you please stop reverting my edits to Nickelback and discuss it civilly on the talk page? Tim  meh  !  15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you not understand how check user works. I was tied to that IP because I logged in from that IP at his house, there are two ways you can use the checkuser function. One, you can check for all the IP's any given account has logged in from, two you can see what accounts belong to a specific IP or IP range. That IP isn't my IP, alison will see this when she does what I said for her to, my IP is not even in that range. All checkuser proved is I logged in from that account before, is it all that hard to believe that more than one person may use the same IP. Just because a comment is made from an IP doesn't mean it was from a certain user. Have you ever heard of more than one person living in a house?! I don't live there, I'm just saying. You have some serious issues, you have a long history of arguing over the most ridiculous, and petty things. Why don't you spend your time doing something constructive on here, since you live and breathe wikipedia? Also, you need to start actually reading comments before you reply. I don't know if you don't read them, if you have a coprehension problem or what; but you are very hard to explain something to. Landon1980 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure why you have such a problem with edit warring, Hoponpop, but please consider this your final warning. I do not care whether you think your version is correct, and I do not care what article it's on; if you continue to edit war, you're going to be blocked. GlassCobra 03:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

All Music Guide
Ah, I really wish that vote of yours went through. I've noticed too that AMG is often incorrect when it comes to genres. But a lot of editors seem to be stuck up on the false fact that AMG is always right. Oh well. What can you do, right? -- FatalError (t|c) 03:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yellowcard
Please be civil in edit summaries. There was no reason to make the comment you did, "enjoy your shitty article on a shitty band". I could have taken that statement as a personal attack since I contributed much to the article. If you can't learn how to be civil and assume good faith, then please find some other place to vent your feelings; don't do it here. We're here to improve articles and discuss improving them, not to insult people. Tim meh  !  03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it is such a shitty band, why do you contribute to the article and revert vandalism and such on it? Tim meh  !  03:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Hit the Switch
A tag has been placed on Hit the Switch requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you.  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  21:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

electroclash?
Hi I'm new to this, but it appears you deleted the History section in the Electroclash article? Again I apologise if Ive got the wrong person but I just wanted to see why you did this? I was heavily involved in this movment and Im not really happy with having my details removed. Ceekayone (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Copyrights
A tag has been placed on The Copyrights requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Red Scare Industries
Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages such as Red Scare Industries, to Wikipedia. Doing so is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. J.d ela noy gabs analyze  01:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why your page was deleted.
I am not an admin, but I can tell you positively that recreating the page is not a good way to engender support, and creating a page profanely demanding to be told why your page was deleted could earn you a warning very fast. Check the page's deletion log, and leave a message on the talk page of the admin who deleted the page the first time. J.d ela noy gabs analyze  01:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008
Please comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008. -Rrius (talk) 20:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Lincolonsweasel.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Lincolonsweasel.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Metallica in the media
An article that you have been involved in editing, Metallica in the media, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Metallica in the media. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 10:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Blink-182
By "educate yourself," do you mean that I should read this? Or were you implying that I should read this? I'm not entirely sure what you meant by your pointed edit summary, but what I do know is that I have already "educated" myself "about information being removed if it is not sourced." I know that you can, according to Wikipedia policy, remove content of this nature and, in doing so, you have done nothing wrong, but the point that I was trying to make when I reverted your edit, was that the sentence you deleted could have been edited in such a way as to preserve the information that it was meant to convey. Namely, that Blink-182 has sold millions of records and has a large number of fans. You didn't need to delete the entire sentence (even though you are entitled to do so). I will not re-revert your edit because I do not want to start an edit war, but I decided to message you in order to explain my rationale. Also, there is a really good article on wikipedia that you may find interesting. It's located here. Have a wonderful day! Ł ittleÄ lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Star Fucking Hipsters
A tag has been placed on Star Fucking Hipsters requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Rising*From*Ashes (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, I declined the speedy of this article; as you noted, the band has notable members and so meets WP:MUSIC criterion #6, on the surface. However, it would be great to see sources.  Also, Stza has a different spelling of the band name.  If you could look into that, which spelling is correct, and make the two match that would also be useful. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Nickelback article
1.) Allmusic isn't a particularly reliable source when it comes to genres of heavy metal.

2.) A more reliable source (the book "The Rough Guide to Heavy Metal") clashes, so I went with it over allmusic. Prophaniti (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

One Be Lo
Hi. Just wondering if you could clarify on the talk page what this means: Fails to meet criteria for a music article. I really think you could be more specific. --DerRichter (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * i agree. just saying Fails to meet criteria for a music article doesn't really help us to understand what needs to be done to "improve" the article. Aunwit (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I still haven't received any answer from Hiponpop69 or JBsupreme about why it was proposed for deletion- was it a mistake? Thanks, --DerRichter (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Piotta (musician)
Twinkle didn't finish the afd for you. I'll do it for you to save you some time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Disaster Movie
We don't add references to IMDB ratings per MOSFILMS. Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That just says IMDB shouldn't be mentioned in critical reception sections. The mention of it in the lead paragraph does not in anyway reference it as if this rating was a critical reception, it merely states a fact for which the movie is notable for.Hoponpop69 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

IMDB is not considered a reliable source and should not be used for article references.MOSFILMS explictly states Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Also, the film already has multiple reliable sources stating its poor reception, so the IMDB rating detail is not necessary in asserting that stance.

Also see:


 * Talk:The_Godfather
 * Talk:The_Dark_Knight_(film)/Archive_8

For past discussions on removing all IMDB rating references from film articles per WikiProject Films. --Madchester (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations on Shai Hulud (band)
Asking for a citation in the Shai Hulud article is completely unnecessary, it is like asking if Britney Spears is a pop singer or not, of if As I lay Dying is metalcore or not. Everybody knows and agree that Shai Hulud is a hardcore band. If you don't, just look for Shai Hulud on google. Citations are needed for things that is likely to be challenged (EG controversial statements or non neutral POV) --Kmaster (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Underoath
Consensus is also a Wikipedia policy. Ignoring previous discussions in which a consensus was reached is not recommended or encouraged on Wikipedia. Also, one of the guidelines of the genre field, is to be as general as possible. If we are to list every genre that we find about Underoath, the list would be unwieldy and useless. Because of this, genres are selected based on their generality and descriptive value, after much discussion on an article's talk page. Citing an article that says that Underoath's third album has an "emo vibe" and their fourth album is "emo by the numbers" does not mean that the band is to be typified by the "emo" genre. Also, the reference that you sited is not reliable. OMH is notorious for hiring non-professional writers. Do you really think Underoath is an emo band? — Ł ittleÄ lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 02:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Facts can overrule consensus, but show me some proof that OMH has been deemed unreliable and I have no arguments.02:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)Hoponpop69 (talk)


 * Yes, but your reference does not prove that Underoath is an emo band. As I mentioned, it merely states that their third album has an "emo vibe" and their fourth album is "emo by the numbers."  Even if we are to concede that this source is thoroughly reliable, how does it prove anything factual about Underoath's genre?  For example, simply citing a music article that says that U2 has gospel influences, does not make U2 a gospel band (though they undoubtable have gospel influences).  Likewise, citing a source that says that the Red Hot Chili Peppers have Funk overtones, does not mean that the RHCP is a funk band.  The whole point with the genre field is that it is inherently subjective (and, likewise, inherently unfactual).  As such, it requires the discussion and consensus of editors.  As I already mentioned, if we are to list every genre that we find on the internet, the list would be too long to be practical and useful.  — Ł ittleÄ lien¹8² (talk\contribs) 02:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if the said reference is reliable or not, it simply doesn't back up the claim. Aiming for generality is not adding every single genre you can find by googling. Either find a couple reliable sources that definitively say Underoath is an emo band, or their genre is emo or it stays out. Landon1980 (talk) 13:36, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

August Burns Red is NOT DEATH METAL
I don't care if it's a "reliable" source. There has been repeated discussion about the genre of this band, and it has been agreed that August Burns Red is Metalcore, and nothing else. Your "reliable" source is anything but that. It is just another site that lumps all extreme metal styles into either Death or Black metal. Honestly, I bet you don't even listen to August Burns Red, and if you do, I doubt you have any idea what either Metalcore or Death Metal is.

http://www.last.fm/music/August+Burns+Red http://media.www.qcknightnews.com/media/storage/paper564/news/2007/09/26/KnightLife/August.Burns.Red.A.Christian.Metalcore.Band.That.Actually.Doesnt.Suck-3003627.shtml http://www.sputnikmusic.com/album.php?albumid=7838 http://www.cduniverse.com/productinfo.asp?pid=7437901 http://media.www.brockpress.com/media/storage/paper384/news/2008/03/11/ArtsEntertainment/Lighting.Up.The.Metalcore.Scene-3263626.shtml http://media.www.thecurrentonline.com/media/storage/paper304/news/2007/08/20/ArtsAndEntertainment/August.Burns.Red.Releases.Solid.Sophomore.Albumaugust.Burns.Red.Releases.Solid.S-2932704.shtml

Seriously... I could go on and on... Find me as many links that say that August Burns Red is a Death Metal band. Make sure there are the words "August Burns Red is death metal," or something of the like. 69.251.198.48 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see you are back at it. There is consensus in place on this article, the Christian faith section was agreed upon by multiple editors. I would encourage you to avoid edit warring over this and picking up your old habits. Otherwise your 10th block may be in the near future. I'd say your next block will be indef. Landon1980 (talk) 01:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus conshmensus, sourced information is sourced information.Try your hardest, but you can't argue with it.Hoponpop69 (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you done? If not you need to stop ignoring the talk page. If you do decide to participate in the discussion please try and remain civil. I'd hate to have to report you again, you have the longest block log of a registered user I've ever seen. As such I don't think the admin will be as lenient this time around, you have been given chances time and time again. Landon1980 (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Hoponpop, this edit summary is unacceptable. Please do not attack the contributor, instead focus on the content. Landon1980 (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

November 2008
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI
I have started a thread on ANI regarding your recent behavior. Landon1980 (talk) 15:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool thanks.Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Message from WikiProject Punk music
Hello!

You may be interested to know that WikiProject Punk music has recently undergone a major revitalization. Please visit the project page to see our new look and check out some of our helpful new features, such as the Assessment Department and the Collaboration of the week. There are also a number of tasks on our Things to do page that you may be interested in helping with.

We are currently holding a roll call to help gauge how many active project members we have. Please visit the project's talk page and add your signature to the roll sheet to express your continued interest in the project. Also, if you have not already done so, please take a minute to add your name to the Participants page along with a brief summary of your punk-related interests, so that other project members will be better able to collaborate with you. If you do not add your signature to the roll sheet by November 30, 2008 your name will be moved to our list of inactive members. We may also take the liberty of removing the project userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:WikiProject Punk music members. Of course you are free to rejoin the project and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active in the project again.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support WikiProject Punk music!

--IllaZilla (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning regarding your edits to Art punk.
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. ---<font face="Celtic"> RepublicanJacobite The'FortyFive'  18:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

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. CIreland (talk) 00:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Art Punk
Hello. I have monitoring and its talk page since your report at WP:RFPP. I wonder if you could elaborate for me on the rationale behind this edit. Thanks. CIreland (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I was making a point of how none of the "styles of art punk" in the article were found to have any connections, and the article was just a list of various genres of music.Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is what I thought. Please do not do that. It is not acceptable to make edits which you believe to be incorrect just to make a point; if you wish to make the argument that the logical extension of your opponents versions would lead to an absurdity then do so on the talk page - don't disrupt articles to demonstrate your point. If the issue is becomeing intractable then start an article request for comment. CIreland (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to follow the directions for that but they were too confusing. Can you do it?Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Starting an RFC is lot simpler than it used to be. Unfortunately, it's not practical for me to do it for you as you need to give a neutral description of the dispute. You need to copy and paste:




 * Replace section title with something like "Sources dispute RFC"
 * Replace neutral statement with a description of the dispute, as neutrally worded as you can make it. If this reads in a biased fashion people will not take the RFC seriously.


 * Just do your best and I will fix any technical errors if I see any. CIreland (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Removal of material on punk jazz article
Hi -- I reverted your edit because while all content should be sourced, that doesn't necessarily mean that all unsourced information should be summarily deleted. In this particular case, the situation is further complicated by the multiple sources that are cited, which do support the content in question -- it is inline citations that are lacking, not sources. In any case, this is the sort of thing that should be discussed on a case-by-case basis on the talk page rather approached head-on. Please see WP:DELETE. This should be discussed at Talk:Punk jazz. best, Aryder779 (talk) 02:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My Chemical Romance
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information.


 * The text you are adding is a novel conclusion that appears in no reliable source. see WP:SYNTH --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 14:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no source that states the bands mentioned are 'playing a differing style of music from the previous emo bands'. This is an unpublished conclusion and therefore original research. Have a look at WP:NOR, in particular the paragrpah that starts "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources. Even if published by reliable sources, material must not be connected together in such a way that it constitutes original research". Wikipedia needs to reflect what is said in sources. We aren't allowed to draw our own personal conclusions from what sources are saying as these may be highly subjective. Furthermore this paragraph doesnt belong in the lead of the article. The lead paragraph is a summary of an article's content. Please use the talk page to discuss this with other editors and note that edit warring is against wikipedia policy. --<span style="font-size: 10pt; text-decoration: underline; color:black; border: 1pt solid white; padding: 0pt 4pt; background-color: white;">neon white talk 16:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ all you had to do was slightly alter that sentence instead of removing content.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for an answer
On my question about why you wrote that One Be Lo: Fails to meet criteria for a music article. I asked you and User:JBsupreme in August and then again in October but neither of you have responded. Was it just a mistake when you proposed this article for deletion? I would appreciate an answer. --DerRichter (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure I didn't look into it enough it was a mistake.Hoponpop69 (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks for the response. --DerRichter (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Emotronic
You didn't give a reasoning in the afd for Emotronic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 22:22, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

It was a recreation of a previously deleted article, I meant to speedy it.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Record labels
Going through the CSD queue I see that you have nominated a lot of articles on record labels some of which longstanding, for speedy deletion as per CSD A7. Now, WP:MUSIC isn't explicit but indirectly refers to major independent labels as those "with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable". As this comes form the section on bands, it may be somewhat circular, but I'd say that an article with several linked bands asserts enough importance to warrant discussion. I've declined one speedy, but will ask around as well.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've deleted some, declined others and converted a few to proposed deletions. See also Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(music). --Tikiwont (talk) 14:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I was basing this all of of the precedent from Articles for deletion/Red Scare Industries which had a roster of mostly notable bands, but was deemed an unnotable label.Hoponpop69 (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even read the Eugene Records article or read any of its external links before arbitrarily nominating it for deletion? Seriously? There's not a lot in Central Kentucky, so it's quite notable given that context. I've already passed this by Gwen Gale some months ago as to the notability of the page. Please consult her before taking any further action. Thank you. - Team4Technologies (talk) 16:08, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On a technical note: If anybody removes the Prod in good faith it should not be addeed again as this counts as contesting it. Thanks, --Tikiwont (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Emo GA
I'd advise withdrawing the nomination for the article as a GA. There is still much work to be done. The first and second wave paragraphs are largely unreferenced and not one source directly discusses emo: rather, they discuss bands with emo attributes. The origin of the term emo, a crucial piece of information, seems largely unexplored. I understand that there is little literature to pin things down but speculation and original research isn't the right approach. Maybe it's too soon to be writing a quality article – I'm sure books about the movement will be published in the future and they'll give you something more to work with. Take care. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

TNSrecords
I have already checked the notability of the article with the admins here at Wikipedia and was told it easily meets the notability criteria, and yet you tag it for deletion under the same criteria. Please could you remove that tag as it is incosistant with information I have been goven by other wikipedia administrators.Mozza1979 (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Juts to clarify: I've converted Hoponpop69's speedy deletion tag into a proposed deletion. As you're clearly contesting it I've removed the proposal on your behalf. Be a aware, though, that disagreements over notability are common here and may still be settled at a deletion discussion. --Tikiwont (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

soty
you have told me not to remove referenced info so i wont. but i have read the referenced sites. and from what i read, it does not state that SOTY are emo, but have moved on to another sound being more heavier (e.g punk and metal sound) so maybe that needs a change or an addition. this band is pretty difficult to put into a genre as they use different sounds to their songs (which i do listen to) ThePartyBrigade (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 08:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)