User talk:Syxxpackid420

March 2010
I am unsure whether you have deliberately or accidentally, albeit comprehensively, misconstured my position in your latest edit to technical death metal. Can I please recommend you read WP:RS, to understand why About.com is considered a reliable source here at Wikipedia, and WP:GENRE WARRIOR for why people constantly tinkering with the content of list articles can be extremely irritating. As a rule, do not remove sourced material from such lists. Finally, do not use edit-summaries that misrepresent the views of other editors to suit your own POV; the comment "Blackmetalbaz agrees that the genre should be "brutal, devastating death metal" and will create the article" bears no relation to anything I have said, and its tone is a borderline WP:CIVIL issue. I'll leave the article for a couple of days so as not to start and edit war, but I suggest you read the relevant policies in the meantime. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not a WP:GENRE WARRIORbut the tone of this implication raised WP:CIVIL issues. Also peWP:Ignore all rules I am changing it again Syxxpackid420 (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excty how does this apply as an WP:IAR case?! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

As you well know, Cannibal Corpse are not technical death metal. You are preventing me from improving wikipedia by labelling me a genre warrior. You have not edited [Cannibal Corpse] as you know it is wrong. If you do so, I will reluctantly stop the reverts. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Thus should now be redirected to Syxxpackid420b Syxxpackid420b (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Between the Buried and Me, you will be blocked from editing. GunMetal Angel 13:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Lily Allen
The use of the term "lesbian romp" is not remotely appropriate in an encyclopaedia article, especially a biography of a living person, on which we have a very strict policy. I have no opinion on the validity of the content, but if you repeat the edit with that phrase, you may well be blocked for violation of the policy. Please have a read of it. The policy on edit-warring may also be of interest to you. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   19:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Five Finger Death Punch nu metal source (I presume)
I haven't seen the rule myself; I was informed (or became informed) of it shortly after I added Five Finger Death Punch to the list of nu metal bands; Blackmetalbaz, who you are already acquainted with, was the one who mentioned the rule. I took his word for it because he seems more well-versed in the rules than me, but now that you mention it, I don't know if the rule he stated (which can be seen in the list's edit history) is actually a rule. You should take it up with him and see if you can confirm it.

Regarding your genre speculation, I've never heard any nu metal, thrash or metalcore in FFDP's sound (granted, I haven't heard much from them - they're a band I don't like much, so I'm not really motivated to check out their stuff aside from the couple of singles I heard). I think of them as groove metal, with a bit of post-grunge here and there. --LordNecronus (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Nu metal
What accuracy are you reverting to? The sources used clearly stated what was in the revision I reverted to, and the text was also better organized. Read the sources and text before undoing the edits of others. (Sugar Bear (talk) 02:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC))

Metal Observer
Because it is a webzine, and therefore fails WP:RS. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:06, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Despised Icon
You have made a edit summary on the technical death metal article stating that (in block capitols, no less) the sources for Despised Icon state that they are "not a technical death metal band". This is somewhat bizarre, given that the Allmusic source says precisely the opposite. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:18, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your behaviour becomes increasingly bizarre. The Allmusic source I mention states, "Despised Icon is a band that combines technical death metal with technical metalcore". That is as explicit as you can get, and is precisely why they will remain on the list! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Allmusic quote is a direct one... it is clearly not simply stating they have elements of tech death (though if it did, that would still be enough for inclusion on the list. Not sure where you're going with the WP:CIVIL stuff... I simply commented that lying about the contents of sources is somewhat bizarre behaviour, as anyone can immediately check them. The most specific WTF moment was this edit summary. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Technical death metal
Certainly. "Technical death metal" is a genre term, a death metal band that is also technical is not the same thing at all. This makes some inclusions potentially contentious, but the exact phrase "technical death metal" (or "tech-death" or similar) would have to be used as a minimum for inclusion. If an argument could be made that the phrase "technical death metal" was not being used as a genre descriptor, then that could be taken to the talk page and consensus reached. However, that would still make the inclusion of Cannibal Corpse uncontroversial, and the non-inclusion of JfaC... until other reliable sources are found. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Facebook is a reliable source
A person stating something on his or hers official Facebook page, is just as reliable as stating it in a video. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.197.75.15 (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Lol about this. If the entity (can be a company, a person or an arist) state something on his official facebook page, then its the same like putting that up on his website. You can use that as a RS. (only if its the official channel) --Neo139 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * RS is not valid for facebook personal profile but for facebook pages. You can know it is legit when its official website link to their facebook page or when its obvious (when they post exclusive videos and news). Just use common sense in each case and it will be ok.--Neo139 (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Spellcaster (Manowar album) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Spellcaster (Manowar album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Spellcaster (Manowar album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Daniel Case (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this about Technical Death Metal because if you actually observe what's happening, an anyomonous editor is trying to add a band that doesn't have an article on Wikipedia. The source added linked to the band's song, which seemed to be advertisement and possible conflict of interest to me. Also I have provided different reasons for each revert, I thought this would help to avoid breaking the three edits per day rule. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion input request
Hi,

Last month I moved the list of experimental metal artists to its own list. Some of the entries have been challenged, and the discussion has stalled, as only me and the challenging editor have commented. I really don't care if the entries stay or are removed, I just want to get some third opinions. Check the talk page for the discussion.

Thanks, -- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 20:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That Mogwai source was fine, it mentioned they are experimental metal, even if they still comfortably fit into other genres. Just my opinion as an inclusionist but I'm sure editors like blackbarry share this view Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism of crunkcore page
Your latest edit on the crunkcore was completely out of line. The edit summary makes it clear that you were solely out to make a point, and in this case would be considered vandalism. Also, I don't know if this is what you intended, but marking your eidt as minor looks like a hostile response to the summary of the edit that I made, in which I admonished that your previous edits were not minor. I understand that you are frustrated with the debate and process of consensus on the article. I'm frustrated with it as well. Please don't take it the wrong way, but I'm also frustrated at your continued stubbornness on this issue. But, I am trying to work with you and keep the discussion going. Getting angry and resorting to disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is only going to escalate things and could get you in trouble. I'm going to see if I can find what the next step in dispute resolution is after RfC. Hopefully, we can get this verrrrrry long, long, long, long, issue resolved.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 21:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel it was vandalism, was not my intention. My point is the same as its always been that Wikipedia is not an advert and should not be advertising david whatever his name is, as he is not notable, Allmusic is Syxxpackid420 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Crunkcore, Talk:Kesha/Archive 4, Talk:Kesha/Archive 2". Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 22:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was going to inform you of this, but the bot beat me to it! There might be a lot of people in this discussion, so watch out! Hopefully, this can be resolved.-- &iquest;3fam  ily6  contribs 23:00, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

February 2013
Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I noticed that you made an edit to a biography of a living person, Pink (singer), but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Tbhotch can easily be misinterpreted. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  23:54, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Papa Roach and Nu Metal
I heard that you changed my sentenced about the Nu Metal wikipedia and you say Papa Roach are STILL nu metal. Now I don't know where did you get your information from but Papa Roach changed their music style. Not only that but they changed their image too. Papa Roach are not nu metal today. Any things you have to say than please go check more information before telling fake source. 10:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.133.243.249 (talk)

May 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=609210734 your edit] to Nu metal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pure Love (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

What
"everyone knows you're a dog because of the red ink, this is being discussed as being furthered on the talk page." https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heavy_metal_music&diff=677209497&oldid=677203621 CombatMarshmallow (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing wrong with being sexy. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Messing around. See where it gets you. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:25, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In that vein, this was needlessly provocative. And do remember that BLP applies to talk page discussions as well in the future. Daniel Case (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The remark was sarcastic not provocative. Sorry for any offense but metal does love bromance and this should be noted if a section like that outlined is added. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Download Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Disturbed. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

About the deathcore page edit
Technically, they were exclusively a deathcore band when that song was made. However, if you think the page was better before that point or it almost never happens, that's fine by me. Awesomewiki64 (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC) True, but I think their album was on the softer side of deathcore and they're not a good band to use as charactistic of the genre given their subsequent changes in style to metalcore and electro-rock Syxxpackid420 (talk) 13:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Melodic death metal
You reverted a whole bunch of removals, but cited only The Agonist as being reliably sourced as playing melodic death metal. Don't do that again, please. Secondly, no such reliable source is currently provided - the source on the page was to the record label Century Media, which obviously fails WP:RS. Find a source in a reliable, third-party (preferably print) source and then re-include. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC) While untrue, this source is verifiable. If blabbermouth doesn't pass, I will eat your blackberry. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I totally agree that passes WP:RS. So re-add The Agonist with *that source* not the one that was in the article and don't re-add all of the other bands you did last time (unless you have sources for those as well!). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blabbermouth is questionable unless it's an actual review, as the consensus on the news blurbs is that it's hard to determine what amount of editorial oversight exists. Some media coverage indicates the the news items, unlike the reviews, are basically self-published content.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge
Merge with Syxxpackid42 Syxxpackid42 (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2022 (UTC)