User talk:Trandingbrights

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Metro Station (band), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. SQGibbon (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Efyeahimamarxist. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. ''That editor made a legitimate edit based on the Metacritic source. A disagreement in content is not vandalism'' SQGibbon (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want to convey that This Is War was a critical success when all indications are that it got a lukewarm response. That "link" that you provided is not particularly constructive and was clearly written as a harmless and uncritical device to help 30 Seconds to Mars promote their tour. Efyeahimamarxist (talk) 18:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

This Is War
Whenever editors are unable to agree on specific edits the best way to deal with them is to have a discussion on the talk page of the article under contention. This way other editors can participate and a community-wide consensus can be achieved. As for this article in particular it already has 11 reviews linked to plus the 9 at Metacritic. That's 20 reviews. We do not need any more. Actually it's only 16 reviews since some of the Metacritic reviews are linked to separately. In any case 16 reviews is a lot by Wikipedia standards. So what the issue comes down to is what's the overall judgement of these reviewers. Here's what I see:

Non-Metacritic: 5 good, 1 medium, 0 bad.

Metacritic: 1 good, 6 medium, 2 bad.

Add all that together and you get:

6 good, 7 medium, 2 bad.

I would say that's a mixed review. Even if you add three more positive reviews that's still an equal number of good reviews to medium + bad reviews. (Note, changing either of those figures by two or three votes does not change the overall argument). I would be fine with stating "mostly mixed to positive reviews" as that seems fairly accurate and free of overt bias.

I personally don't care about this album. I've never heard of it or the band and have no interest in listening to them. All I am is a dispassionate observer trying to retain a neutral tone in the article as per Wikipedia standards.

Anyway, if you disagree with my assessment above then the best place to handle this is on the talk page of the article. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

30 Second to Mars
Provide additional feedback on the talk page to further discuss progressive metal instead of labeling me as vandalism without prior reason. Thank you. F-22 Raptör Aces High ♠ 23:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Say it to |this.

I think that you can't read. I have written two times in the last five minutes at the talk page about 30 Seconds to Mars and prog metal.--Trandingbrights (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

See my edits, I've done nothing wrong.--Trandingbrights (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You are seriously claiming that you have no relationship to these users?

I really wish you would just accept that you aren't permitted to edit Wikipedia anymore.&mdash;Kww(talk) 17:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are doing it wrong. There are a couple of users as Paint Old Street Black, 30STM and Losevangelos, that aren't mine. And seriously, you are wasting time doing this. I'm still editing wikipedia and you are doing a bad work. Told me what is wrong with this version (the current template sucks) and explain what I did wrong with this user. With love, 79.53.183.48 (talk) 09:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)