User talk:Jacedc

GA
Thank you for a thoughtful review of Maria Radner! She will go to the Main page in a few hours, perfect timing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no problem! :) Jacedc (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Precious
  Rock out about good articles

Thank you, Jacedc, for quality articles such as Breaking Benjamin and their reviews such as Maria Radner, for a revert in detail, for your clear professional user page design and your essay about identity concealment, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Why, thank you, ! I return the compliments. Jacedc (talk) 13:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * My user page is not professional (but dilettante, has to do with delight), also allegedly a place of hostility and accusations ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, at least you're an awesome Wikipedian, too (as far as I can tell). :) Jacedc (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes. Someone told me in August 2010, and I still have it on said page. He left this kafkaesque place (a few times), - I keep doing what he did and named the prize after him. Another editor insisted that I have the cat on said page, not permitted to remove it ;) - Today is the anniversary of He was despised, - I confess that when I wrote that I thought not only of Jesus but a few people here, - more below the monkey. - Call me Gerda ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * @Gerda: Oh wow, you've been around for a long time I see. Plus, not only are you an awesome Wikipedian, you're also a sister in Christ. :D (From what I gather on your user page, anyway). Nice to encounter on here. Jacedc (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you know that I am part of a not so secret cabal? Look for Kafka on that page, three reasons to be proud, - I miss that 2013 collaboration, but am happy wherever I find the spirit, like right here right now ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1181 of Precious, a prize of QAI! - The monkey was archived (the first "just" returned, the other "just" died, a shock for me, the other four stay away), the prize received a more general name, - the rest still applies, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Five years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks/Nice Work
Good job on all the work on Breaking Benjamin related things, you've done a lot of good work. While I'm not really motivated enough to do major rewrites or anything, I'll try to continue my maintenance activities, maintaining the good changes you're making. Sergecross73  msg me  18:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I enjoy doing it. :) Jacedc (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

FAC input
Hi! Since you're an experienced contributor to music articles, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received one editor's review but not much follow-up yet--just votes without a review--so anything would really be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 01:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can do that. I have already left a few comments. Jacedc (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Mark Klepaski page redirected....
Hello there. Can you please tell me why you have redirected Mark' Klepaski's personal page to Breaking Benjamin. Mark has personally asked me personally to "fix" his entries and I am not too familiar with these polices here on Wki though I am trying my best to help him. I see you have been the main contributor and any help on this matter would be great. Thanks. VMA3 05:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viamarie (talk • contribs)

Breaking Benjamin genres
Hey, please don't take me the wrong way at the talk page for the Breaking Benjamin article. I'm just trying to go for what I think would be the best for the infobox. When IP editors randomly change genres on music article, it annoys me as much as the next guy, but I always like giving my input at genre discussions to help keep it more stable. Genres are a complicated issue on Wikipedia, you know. Also, keep in mind that IPs always insist on keeping alternative metal in infoboxes related to the band. So, by listing alternative metal, we could avoid countless IP editors trying to add it, while at the same time not always having to have the page semi-protected, due to IP editors always trying to add it. It's one of the few reasons I would rather be more specific with the genres. Right now, I'm just waiting for others to comment in the talk page there.

Do you see what I mean here? Kokoro20 (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your message, and likewise, I hope I didn't come off as hostile in any way. I think what it ultimately will come down to is not-voting. I think the reason genres are a complicated thing on Wikipedia is because they're all very loosely-defined, very subjective, and in my opinion, rather dubious. I really dislike sub-sub-genres for this reason. Sub-genres should be as far as it goes, but even then, that's still a subjective topic. Especially considering that music evolves. Genres change, styles change, etc. Also, on a somewhat unrelated note, I've always thought that we should only use genres in the genre field, then styles in the article. It's always made me wonder why we list styles in the genre field. Perhaps it'd be a better idea to change that label to "styles" instead.


 * And I don't really care what IPs keep insisting on. IPs will be IPs, we shouldn't let that affect the way we edit articles. We should do what's best for the article and what makes the most sense, not bend to the will of the devious IP. And besides, the Breaking Benjamin article is permanently IP protected. Kind regards, Jacedc (talk) 20:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, some people don't like the concept of sub-sub-genres, since there's so many of them out there and could lead to confusion. Genres being subjective is exactly why we try to enforce that genre additions to be cited. I often revert arbitrary genre changes on sight at some articles I watch. But despite that, I generally prefer to be more specific for infoboxes, just as long as they aren't cited as a wide variety of genres, which Breaking Benjamin aren't.


 * "Genres" and "styles" are often used synonymously is probably why. For example, if you search "music style" here on Wikipedia, it just redirects to "music genre". Kokoro20 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose genre and style have nowadays become interchangeable. And yeah, sub-sub-genres should definitely always be cited and specific, but only in the context of the rest of the article. I always like to treat the infobox like I treat the lead: it's for more like a preview of the article, not a detailed/specific thing. Anyway, we'll see how the talk page turns out should people decide to give their input. I would ask other people too, but I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head that would be interested. Jacedc (talk) 20:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some people prefer more specific genres for the infobox, while others prefer the more general genres. However, with the lead, there's pretty much a universal agreement that it should generalized. This certainly isn't the first time there's been a long debate on what genres to list in the infobox. I've asked a few people for some input. One of them already replied earlier, but all he did was list sources for each genre, rather than actually saying what genres he supports. Perhaps he'll do it later. I'm just waiting for the others to comment, if they do. Kokoro20 (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, going by how many sources say what is kind of useless. First of all, many of the sources mention more than one style (e.g. "the alternative hard rockers from Pennsylvania", "the post-grunge/alternative metal outfit", etc.) Plus, the quantity and quality of sources aren't fixed; more will likely come around sooner or later, maybe even long after a consensus would be established. It'd be one thing if the issue were a lot simpler and there was less sources to begin with, but when there's a lot, the "Wikipedia way" is kind of pointless. Hopefully he states which he supports. Jacedc (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * On an unrelated note, Kokoro, could you think of anyone that would qualify as an "uninvolved editor" to review the GA nom for the article? It's been a nom since March. After, of course, this whole genre thing is settled. I've been thinking about asking someone to at least give their input on it being a GA, if not an actual review. Do you know of anyone that is experienced in the GA process that hasn't edited the article before? (Or at least, not in a while.) Jacedc (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He did that to help give us an idea on what genres are supported in the sources the most. And yeah, some sources do that, but in those cases, we usually just list all the genres in same source. Many of these sources are at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, so those ones should be good. But also keep in mind that just because a particular source isn't listed there, doesn't mean it's not reliable for music articles.


 * I'm sorry, but I really can't think of anyone. As you can probably tell, not a lot of people take up reviewing artist articles. You would have better luck with album and song articles even. Luckily, few of the album and song articles I've nominated for GA in the past ended up being reviewed pretty quickly. I have yet to nominate an artist article though. Kokoro20 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the artists go by so slow. Ah well. I'll just wait it out, then. Jacedc (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * At this point, I'm not sure if we're going to establish a consensus on what to list in the genre field. I have asked three other editors to comment yesterday as well, but still nothing from them yet. It's only been a day, so we could wait a little longer for them. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm in no rush. :) Jacedc (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, for right now, I think I've said pretty much all I needed to say on the talk page there. At this point, it feels like I'm repeating myself, if anything. Kokoro20 (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've been repeating myself for a while now. Jacedc (talk) 23:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

And it just looks like you did again. I already made my reply about the "aim for generality" argument before, so I'm probably not going to repeat myself there. In any case, Myxomatosis57 posted at some WikiProjects related to Breaking Benjamin to notify that there's an ongoing genre dispute, so maybe we'll get some more opinions. Kokoro20 (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. :) Hope we do. Jacedc (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Pastel colours
Made a proposal at Talk:Main Page. Somebody should turn it into a formal RFC.♦ Dr. Blofeld  20:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Breaking Benjamin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Breaking Benjamin you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Johanna -- Johanna (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, @Johanna! :)  15:19, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Breaking Benjamin - Blow Me Away (preview).ogg
Thanks for uploading File:Breaking Benjamin - Blow Me Away (preview).ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)