User talk:Strangeguy91

July 2016
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Mad Season (album), without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel ) 00:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mad Season (album). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

August 2016
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Metallica. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  22:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

September 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at St. Anger.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  22:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Hello, I'm RedPanda25. I noticed that in this edit to Grunge, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. RedPanda25 20:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Metallica, you may be blocked from editing.  4TheWynne (talk) (contribs)  23:02, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Please stop repeatedly removing sourced content without any explanation, as you keep doing at nu metal. In fact, looking at your talk page, it looks like you've been repeatedly warned about this sort of thing with excessively tinkering with music genre, something that's not generally appreciated on Wikipedia. Please stop, or you'll be blocked from editing. Final warning. Sergecross73  msg me  16:10, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Diabolus in Musica. Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

August 2017
Just letting you know, this whole reverting thing appears to be an edit war. I'm trying to make the articles more neutral. Even if Sixteen Stone has called grunge on Wikipedia, it's still called post-grunge. Whether it says (Grunge, post-grunge) or (Post-grunge, grunge), it still calls the album post-grunge. The reason why I put grunge before post-grunge is because grunge has more sources than post-grunge. The source you used for Razorblade Suitcase being post-grunge doesn't directly call the album post-grunge. It has to say "Razorblade Suitcase" and "post-grunge" in the same sentence (or something like that). I tried to make the grunge and post-grunge articles as neutral as possible by refusing to call Bush "grunge" and refusing to call Bush "post-grunge". That way, there won't be any edit wars, genre wars, controversy, etc. over the whole thing. It is a fact that Bush and Candlebox both have been described as both "grunge" and "post-grunge". The post-grunge article is not saying that Bush aren't post-grunge. The article is supposed to be kept as neutral as possible and a source about post-grunge defines post-grunge the way my version of the post-grunge article does. Statik N (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on grunge, post-grunge, Sixteen Stone, and Razorblade Suitcase. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Statik N (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.


 * We could all agreed that Sixteen Stone is mostly a post-grunge record. Bush were called imitators of the original grunge genre, just like Creed and Nickelback. Original grunge is stuff like Tad, Mudhoney, Nirvana, Alice In Chains, Soundgarden and mostly bands that came from Seattle. Grunge had something to do with a specific time and a specific place. Bush became popular in 1995 and were at their height in success in 1996, by that point the original grunge was dead. Kurt died in 1994, Alice In Chains played their last shows with Layne Staley in 1996, Pearl Jam was declining in success in 1996 and Soundgarden released their last record in 1996 before they broke up in 1997. Post-grunge in the other hand which was what Bush mostly were, was very popular in the mid 90s and were slammed of being grunge imitators. Bush played grunge, yes, in a radio-friendly way, Creed and Nickelback also played grunge as well, in a radio-friendly way, those 3 bands, Bush, Creed, and Nickelback are not from Seattle. They are not part of the original grunge scene, they are part of the post-grunge scene, whether you like it or not. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * First of all, on Wikipedia, sources>opinions. Also, Bush aren't as radio-friendly as Nickelback and Creed. Bush sound just as radio-friendly as Nirvana. The only Bush song that I can think of that sounds very radio-friendly is "Glycerine". Anyway, Soundgarden's 1996 album was still called grunge (the year Razorblade Suitcase came out). And Bush's Sixteen Stone came out when Soundgarden's Superunkown came out. Also, there are grunge bands that aren't from Seattle (e.g.: Stone Temple Pilots and even the Australian band Silverchair). Statik N (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Sixteen Stone was released in December of 1994, at the very end of that year, it became popular in 1995 and was at it's height of success in 1996. Bush are closer to bands like Candlebox, Live, Silverchair, Collective Soul, etc, bands that were radio-friendly alternatives to bands like Nirvana and Pearl Jam. You making claims that Bush is like Nirvana is just wrong, Bush is not Nirvana and Nirvana is not Bush, Nirvana were rooted in underground, Bush was rooted in mainstream and female fans loved Gavin because of his good looks, that is not Nirvana and never was Nirvana. Creed sounds more like Pearl Jam than what Bush is to Nirvana and yet, we don't see people labeling Creed as a full original grunge act. Bush played grunge rules just like how Creed and Nickelback played their grunge rules, they imitated and made their own rules, Bush mostly brought romantic themes into their music unlike Nirvana. I'm sorry but Bush was always more post-grunge than original grunge, maybe if they came out and released their debut album in 1992 but by the ending of 1994, that was too late to be considered original grunge, just imitation by then. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 20:30, 5 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * Nickelback and Creed don't sound anything like actual grunge bands. Neither does Staind, Three Days Grace, etc. Bush, however, sound almost exactly like Nirvana. Also, Nirvana had plenty of romantic lyrics in their songs. Also, like Nirvana, Bush were influenced by plenty of underground music/music that influenced Nirvana (e.g.: The Jesus Lizard and the Pixies). Also, Nirvana sold way more than Bush did. Statik N (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * You are trolling with your own opinions when you say that Nickelback and Creed don't sound anything like actual grunge bands. If you are saying that then Bush also doesn't sound like an actual original grunge band, Nickelback and Creed sounds a lot like grunge to me and to a lot of people out there, that is why they are hated because they imitated the original grunge sound and made it radio-friendly which is what Bush was doing a few years before they arrived into the scene. Bush is not Nirvana, stop saying that. Creed sounds closer to Pearl Jam than what Bush is to Nirvana but you don't hear people calling Creed original grunge, right? Bush is closer to post-grunge. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * Nickelback sound more like Staind or Three Days Grace than actual grunge bands. And Creed sound like a much more upbeat Pearl Jam. Bush don't sound more upbeat than Nirvana and Bush literally sound so much like Nirvana. Also, Bush is not more radio-friendly than Nirvana. I pretty much already explained why. Statik N (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Wrong, Creed doesn't sound like a upbeat Pearl Jam, they sound more like a Christian version of Pearl Jam, with a lot of religious lyrics into them. Bush are very radio-friendly since the beginning, look at their music now, they sound a lot like Nickelback now. Bush is more radio-friendly than Nirvana, Bush never recorded a album as grungy as Bleach from Nirvana, what Bush is attracted to is the sound from Nevermind. That is what Bush tries to imitate and makes it very radio-friendly, Gavin lyrics are definitely radio-friendly. I am actually surprise that you don't see that. Nirvana sold more than Bush but that doesn't mean anything, Nirvana had a huge importance that Bush can't follow because Bush was trying to imitate them. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * Creed does sound quite upbeat. Also, Bush have the same melodies as Nevermind and In Utero. They have similar lyrics themes, similar vocals and a similar sound. Statik N (talk) 21:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop saying that Bush sounds 100% like Nirvana, they don't, Bush is more radio-friendly than Nirvana, that is the truth. Creed doesn't sound like a upbeat Pearl Jam, have you even listen to both bands? Bush sounds clean, Nirvana sounds raw. If we can't decide the genres of Bush first two albums, then I would just delete the genres, in that case everybody wins there. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 21:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * That's a good compromise but Bush is just as raw as Nirvana and Nirvana sounds just as radio-friendly as Bush. And Creed DO sound upbeat.

Statik N (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Creed doesn't sound upbeat, maybe in Weathered but they sound more like Pearl Jam than what Bush is to Nirvana. Have you ever heard the My Own Prison album? Some songs really sounds like a Christian version of Pearl Jam. Bush is cleaner than Nirvana. Gavin's voice is not as rough as Kurt at all. Nirvana has Bleach, Bush never made a record like Bleach, they made a record like Nevermind but definitely not Bleach. Look at Bush now, with songs like Baby Come Home or Mad Love, Still got mad love for you baby, that is 100% not NIRVANA. Never was. Gavin Rossdale is very much like Chad Kroeger, Gavin writes catchy hooks and catchy melodies and know something like that will sell. Sure, Bush won't sell that much albums now because they are somewhat a nostalgic mid 90s band now but in his heyday, he wrote good hooks that will sell to people. Kurt did that too but Kurt was always more underground inspired than Gavin, girls fainted for Gavin, for Kurt, I don't think so. Grunge is dirty and raw, Bush was the opposite of that. Grunge bands come from Seattle, mostly, Bush was not from Seattle and is not part of the flannel shirts Grunge Seattle scene. Bush never were. By the way, I love Bush, I owned their first three albums, Sixteen Stone, Razorblade Suitcase, and The Science Of Things. I am a huge original grunge fan and a huge post-grunge fan and I could tell who is original grunge and who was post-grunge, Bush fit more with the first wave of post-grunge and not original Seattle grunge, the most famous act that I could tell that were original grunge and weren't from Seattle were the Stone Temple Pilots. They were original, Scott Weiland was doing songs like Naked Sunday and Wicked Garden since 1990, before Pearl Jam became popular. Also, before grunge made it to the mainstream, Stone Temple Pilots had that grunge sound before grunge became very popular, Bush in the other hand formed in 1992 when Grunge was at is peak, well, 1992 and 1993 were original grunge at it's peak. I know what original grunge is and Bush were never that, they were always the radio-friendly version of grunge, the post-grunge version. By the way, post-grunge is very similar to grunge, it is. Musically it is, but the roots and origins are way different, that is what separates original grunge from post-grunge. Grunge started as underground mixture of heavy metal and punk, raw, screaming and a lot of loudness. Bush were never that and is still known as a radio-friendly post-grunge act. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 00:41, 6 August 2017 (UTC) )

Gavin's voice is pretty raw. Nirvana were much more catchy than any Bush song I heard. Pearl Jam never made a record like Bleach. Bush totally sound like another Nirvana on Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase. Statik N (talk) 03:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Nirvana were much more catchy than any Bush song I heard. Wrong, have you even heard songs like Baby Come Home or Mad Love by Bush? Catchier and poppier than anything Nirvana had ever written. Also, Bush still doesn't sound like 100% the same as Nirvana. Gavin voice is not raw, he is not even screaming, he has a deep baritone voice and doesn't sound as raw as Kurt. Bush were not part of the original grunge scene, no grunge peer would ever considered them to be part of that. Nirvana was grunge, Bush are post-grunge. Can you name me a record from Bush that is heavy or as raw as Bleach, good luck finding that. As for the Pearl Jam never recording a album like Bleach, well no because Pearl Jam were original and entirely different from Nirvana, Bush in the other hand were highly influenced by Nirvana and were trying to imitate them but created their own radio-friendly sound that was post-grunge. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 06:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC) )


 * Well, I disagree with a lot of the things you said. Bush sound very grungy to me on Sixteen Stone and Razorblade Suitcase. Statik N (talk) 16:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Second block
You received many warnings about your editing to music genre. In general, editors who do nothing but go around tweaking music genre are frowned upon, but if you do do it, it needs to be according to what reliable sources directly state, not according to ones own personal viewpoints. Yet you continued. You received a final warning from me. Then you received a block from another admin. And yet, checking over your edits of the last 24 hours, what do I see? You adding genre without sources. And you removing sourced genre.

It's not acceptable that this is still happening. As such, you are blocked for 2 weeks. When you return, your edits need to be based entirely around what sources directly state. None of this "this feels right" stuff, or these long subjective debates on how you personally perceive and describe a band's sound. Sources. It's as simple as that, as long as you're on Wikipedia. Sergecross73  msg me  17:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Reload (Metallica album). - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 22:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

You read the above comment, right? Also, if you can't handle neutral point of views on Wikipedia, then you shouldn't edit Wikipedia. Statik N (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Indefinite Block
Since you've returned from yet another block to continue genre-warring, and make changes to articles irregardless of sourcing, you are blocked indefinitely from Wikipedia. If you write up a statement acknowledging what you are doing is against policy, and a plan for what you'd do in the future to avoid doing this anymore, I'll consider unblocking. Otherwise, you will remain blocked. Also be aware of our block evasion policy. You'll be blocked on the spot if you're caught editing through other accounts or IP addresses. Sergecross73  msg me  18:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Okay, what I did was wrong. I was wrong on editing pages. There is this user called Statik N that does the same thing like me, he goes on pages and he adds the genre of what he wants. It's funny because the Hoobastank page never label them as nu metal until he decided to make a difference. He defeats my genres and always wants his preference to be heard. I could recalled that on Hoobastank's page, the band cite many bands as influences, it came down when he came, he decided to delete all of the bands and include only Mike Patton. With the Bush articles, we decided to work things out, I decided that it would be better if we delete the genres, when I got blocked, he decided to include his preferring genres and he did this because I was blocked. On Hoobastank's page, he even included Nu metal first than post-grunge on the musical style. It also doesn't help that I was the one who change the picture of the Hoobastank's page while he was still doing his preferring genres stuff. I always get in trouble and never him when his editing is very similar to mine's. I'm sorry for what I had done.

I did so many wrong things that if I ever get unblocked, I would not do it again unless if I have to discuss it. I will discuss things on the band's pages, I will share information with other users and I will not violate the policy. Where can I write a statement about what I'm doing that is against the policy, I would really like to write that but where? Oh, I also use twinkle a lot of times and Stanik N also uses twinkle as well, especially when we are arguing over the Bush album pages. I'm sorry. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 21:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC) )

My blocking.
I have been blocked. I have a Indefinite Block. I was blocked in August and then I was unblocked on August 20. Sergecross73 blocked me because of the genre-warring. I definitely understand that I had been blocked mostly because of my genre-warring against other users like Stanik N who also uses twinkle when he edit pages and always wants what he thinks to come out as first. I also use twinkle a lot of times, yes, sometimes I will discussed something but a lot of the times, I would just go straight to the point and just edit the page. I am mostly blocked because of my genre-warring and also the twinkle that I was using. I'm sorry for the twinkle that I was using, I am sorry for my genre-warring, very sorry. A lot of the times, people put their opinions on Wikipedia that they seem to forget that this is mostly cooperative work. I am deeply sorry for my mistakes. Very sorry. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will drop your block down to 2 weeks then. But if you make any more genre edits that disregard sourcing, or are based entirely on your own opinion, it's going to go back to indefinite.
 * To be clear, the reason Statik generally doesn't get blocked is because his edits are backed my what sources say. If he's making genre edits that disregard sourcing, report then to be, and if he doesn't stop, he may very well be blocked too.
 * 2 very strong recommendations for when you return:
 * 1) You need to change your approach. Edits need to be made entirely around what sources say. If you don't have a source, don't add it. Reverse your thinking. Start with the source. Then make edits once you've got it.
 * 2) Please find other ways to contribute to Wikipedia besides genre. People who do nothing but tinker with genre, even if they use sources, almost always end up blocked, or burned out and leave, because they get into so many opinion-based arguments all the time. And just as well - music genre labels just aren't all that important. It's much more important to, you know, actually write about music, you know. Add music reviews or "Musical style/composition" sections that actually describe the music (with sources) rather than these vague labels. Sergecross73   msg me  23:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, thanks. One thing that I forgot to mention, on the Hoobastank article, you know, the band's page, Stanik N decided to include nu metal first on the musical style. Now, I have no problem with nu metal being there because it was originally there, however, it wasn't the first genre to be there, I think the first genres were post-grunge and alternative rock. Stakik N is a huge nu metal fan, he loves to edit on nu metal related stuff and he wants his nu metal opinion to matter. Now, I check the sources that he included for nu metal, one of them was from Allmusic, we all know how we can't get sources from allmusic, he also has a source that refers to their debut album and not the band's sound which is a nme review, and lastly one source is from September of 2002 which is hugely dated and old by this point. I was wondering if you could include post-grunge first than nu metal on the musical style because the post-grunge sources label them as a post-grunge band while the nu metal sources talks about their debut album only. Hoobastank has about 6 albums, they definitely had passed the whole nu metal label by this point and is remember as a post-grunge band that has that ballad called The Reason. I don't mind nu metal being included, it was already included, however, Stakik N included nu metal first because he likes nu metal more than post-grunge and I think that is unfair. Thanks for replying though. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I really think you're overestimating the importance of being mentioned first in a laundry list of musical genre. I really believe this is the sort of crap you need to get away from if you plan on staying away from an indef block, but if you insist, you can start up a discussion with Statik in 2 weeks. Sergecross73   msg me  03:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Hoobastank, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Hoobastank. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I already discuss my ideas on the talk page but nobody seems to cooperate and share ideas with me. I'm trying to work things out but nobody wants to work with me. There is a source that has nothing to do with Hoobastank using a post-grunge and a nu metal sound, the source says nothing about that. I deleted that source because that source has no information or nothing to do with Hoobastank at all, I even came to your talk page to discuss it but it seemed like you weren't interested at all. I'm interested so I was thinking what kind of users I could discuss this with. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 20:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC) )
 * Interested users will respond on the article talk page, but maybe not today or tomorrow, maybe not for a week. The article is not going anywhere, be patient. Constructive things don't happen instantaneously around here. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:55, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The only Hoobastank album with nu metal in it is their 2001 album. I don't think any of their other albums have nu metal songs but I could be wrong. I haven't heard a lot of the band's stuff. Statik N (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hoobastank's music is more about love and stuff like that, they actually have a lot of pop rock influences into their post-grunge music. Hoobastank has a lot of love ballads, you know, like how Nickelback has their own love ballads. Their music is not really nu metal at all, yes, in their self titled album they had a few nu metal influences but the overall sound of it was still post-grunge. Statik, I didn't like how you made Hoobastank's article more nu-metal oriented when they have 5-6 records and only one has a few nu-metal influences. This is the band that is known for The Reason, I'm pretty sure most won't know them for a nu-metal act. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC) )

Indefinite block
You were on your last chance when it came to genre warring. You then proceeded to engage in edit warring. At least one of the edits removed genre sourced elsewhere in the article. You are blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia. Sergecross73  msg me  23:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sergecross73, I think you made a mistake. Yes, I edited stuff and I got warned about it, but I left it alone. I got a edit warning, just a warning and then I did nothing. I didn't changed anything or made any conflicts. I just got a small warning and I just left things alone. I didn't change anything. FlightTime gave me a warning and we discussed our things and I did nothing, I followed on what he said. I didn't change anything after he gave me a warning. I'm sorry for the first time but I actually didn't change anything after the warning, I got a warning for it and I did nothing at all. When I removed the genre sourced elsewhere in the article, that was a mistake and I changed it back to the original one. I changed it in one minute if you look at the view history. Sorry if I sound repetitive. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC) )
 * The link above shows you removing ska punk and adding alternative metal without explanation. This edit shows you removing sourced genre without explanation as well. I don't understand how you accidentally did this twice in close succession. Sergecross73   msg me  03:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I changed it back again, I knew I made a mistake so I just changed it again. I'm sorry for that. I never changed it after I made that small mistake when I accidentally erase the genre sourced elsewhere. I'm sorry for that but I could recalled when the article was simpler, when nu-metal was added as early and their was other genres. I don't recalled the article having ska punk or funk metal on the infobox. I'm sorry for what I did, it was a mistake but I changed it again. I knew I made a mistake so I changed it again. ( Strangeguy91 (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC) )
 * I don't understand why you did it in the first place though. Was it not clear what the issue was when I blocked you for 2 weeks? And didn't I strongly recommend disengaging over this minor issue, and not obsessing over genre in general because it's not that important and people usually just keep getting blocked when all they do is argue their subjective opinions on genre? It's like you ignored every single bit of information from my warnings when I reduced your block from indefinite. Sergecross73   msg me  01:48, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
- FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:45, 28 September 2017 (UTC)