User talk:Rockgenre/Archive 1

My Talk Archives

Recent talk

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitesnake

Hi I'm new to editing Wikipedia and I'm not really sure what I did wrong but yesterday you told me that I vandalized a Whitesnake page and I don't really know how because some of Whitesnake's lyrics do have racial implications and I don't know what's wrong with calling it what it is. You can look up the lyrics to the songs I quoted from, but I think hiding the truth from users is Orwellian. Anyways I'm sorry if I'm posting on this page incorrectly! It is my understanding that this is the way to do it? 70.26.101.118 (talk) 23:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RG and I don't often see eye to eye, but I think he'll agree with me on this. Suggesting on Wikipedia that a person or persons "may be racist" is potentially libellous and is an extremely sticky area. Not only that, it's just your point of view. Just pointing out a couple of lyrics (which have no clear meaning anyway) and saying that they might be racist breaks WP:SYNTH and opens the site up to legal action if not removed, unless concrete, verifiable sources are provided. Please read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, WP:V and WP:RS. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow -- I didn't realize the complexity of the issue... I stand by my view but I won't post anything like that again without adhering to those codes. Sorry guys! 70.26.101.118 (talk) 01:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Metal

Re-added, with a source =] (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Thanks! (RockDrummerQ (talk) 16:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Level 2 warning

Please refrain from changing music genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Continued genre changes to suit your own point of view may result in a block. Thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Peter Fleet (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Fair Deal (talk) 04:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wether B (talk) 22:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi - just wanted to try and helpfully chime in. You'll find that if you can find references to back up any claims to make, it is helpful in not getting things reverted (and having a valid argument to complain when they DO), particularly on a lot of the heavy metal-related pages you seem to be having problems with. Luminifer (talk) 04:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Rockgenre, just a quick note: When you're searching for further cites to back up your claims regarding Stone Cold Crazy, I'd recommend that you watch out for sites which are mirroring old copies of wikipedia entries which have since changed. The AllExperts listing for the song is an ideal example, as it is simply a copy of the wikipedia entry from before the claim regarding thrash metal was removed. I'd also note that your statement "Though, rest assured, when I have these sources I will add the songs back on the page." seems to tell me you're more interested in pushing a particular point of view than to finding an accurate set of facts for the Thrash Metal page. Please remember than consensus rules in Wikipedia, and sources that are not RS will probably result in further debates. Hopefully whatever you find, this can be settled agreeably. Random name (talk) 15:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNR

Personally I don't really think of GNR as metal (though they have a few songs that might qualify).. However, if Rolling Stone is listing them as such, that sounds like it's a reasonable thing to say. Did you bring it up on the talk page? Luminifer (talk) 06:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your mistake

You cannot do a simple copy/paste a ref from the 1960s in heavy metal music page to another page because the reference style on that page does not use the same reference style that is on the page you tried to paste it to. You need to create a "Notes" styled format section for the pages you wish to add it to. Right now they use the simpler {reflist} style of reference section. There is a difference in the 2 citation formats. By doing a copy/paste of the partial information and not the actual book information you are just adding a broken reference that is not verifiable to other readers. Fair Deal (talk) 00:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link error

Note: [[heavy metal]] does NOT link to an article about music. It links to the heavy metal disambig page. The correct link for the musical sub-genre of rock music is [[Heavy metal music|heavy metal]]. Heavy metal music links to music. Heavy metal does not. You will need to re-trace any page you have added the incorrect link to and correct it using the piped link example I have shown you (if someone else hasn't had to correct it for you already). Fair Deal (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll correct it when I get around to it. Rockgenre (talk) 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shock rock

The source says glam rock and "shock rock" is more a journalistic term than a proper genre. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GNR is definitely a heavy metal band; sources back this up. However, shock rock is not widely recognized as a genre and should be avoided. WesleyDodds (talk) 21:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. 142.167.163.133 (talk) 10:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Striking sock Rockgenre (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Hey - I was told that you can remove that notice at the top of your talk page. Since you and I are not actually the same person, I suggest you may as well do it. :) Luminifer (talk) 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the history to see who put it there. Luminifer (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

High Tide

Hey - I'd never heard of High Tide before, but based on what you said on the talk page, I'm going to go check them out... (always looking for new bands) Thanks! (Also, nice to see you working to create articles for groups, etc) Luminifer (talk) 03:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool stuff, I was able to find some of their stuff, and it's very interesting! Also, that first track on Cromagnon is quite impressive proto-industrial... Got any more tips? Recently I've been discovering bands like Sir Lord Baltimore, Flower Travellin' Band, Lucifer's Friend, Attila (band).. Presumably you already know all these guys? ;) Luminifer (talk) 16:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I feel bad/good, as I've heard of about half those bands you mentioned, so you needn't have typed so much. Anyway, I could look it up on wikipedia - all you need to do is name names :) ... You should really check out Attila - it's Billy Joel's 1969/70 heavy metal group.. Just keyboards and drums.. Particularly the song "Rollin Home" I think you'll find .. ahem. .. notable. :) I've heard Budgie, Captain Beyond (Deep Purple connection there), Gun (because of the Judas Priest cover - have you heard it?).. I'll check out the other stuff. Luminifer (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What newer stuff are you aware of? It's even harder to get new bands onto wikipedia - my first battle with deletion (and it was over a page I didn't create) was for DMBQ - have you heard them? A Japanese group that revives the soul of the noisy meandering Deep Purple and Jimi Hendrix jams, IMHO. Luminifer (talk) 06:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Book references? I just cite them by author, title, maybe year, maybe publisher, and ISBN. if relevant i'll sometimes quote the part of the book in question... does that help? Luminifer (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just listened to Captain Beyond again - have you heard Clutch (band) ? Really similar in some ways... Luminifer (talk) 00:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music genres

A recurring issue I've seen is that you like to include material that focuses on specific bands in genre articles. Fair enough. But you have to consider that a genre page cannot cover every band involved with a genre. Genre article take a macro view rather than a micro view. When possible, be broad and uses specific examples when need be. This is a succinct way of writing articles, and part of the reason Heavy metal music and Grunge music are featured articles; they don't go on and on about every little band. Additionally, you need to exercise more discretion when including sources; just because a source makes an assertion doesn't necessary mean it's correct. You need to study the subject in-depth and see how the sourced information fits in with the available research instead of just taking it at face value. Also, avoid citing reviews for historical facts; reviews are critical commentary, not histories. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis was influenced by the Beatles and Stone Roses, while Blur was influence by XTC and the Kinks. They've both said so. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromagnon

FYI, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) ... libs should have notified you on your talk page but apparently overlooked it. I'm not sure if you use watchlists or not so figured I'd mention it to you since you created the article and should have been notified. Luminifer (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My advice, since you seem to create genuinely good pages, is to (a) find the points in WP:MUSIC that are satsified, and clearly state them (even if it makes the article read ridiculously), and (b) cross-post to the music deletion list like I did on Crogmagnon. I may be leaving wikipedia soon, as I've made too many enemies here, and some of them have started trying to post semi-personal information about me on a page that's up for deletion, which needless to say makes me fairly uncomfortable. So, if I do disappear and forget to say so, good luck with all this! Luminifer (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really try to help people, since there are so many on here who do exactly the opposite. I'd suggest you do the same, once you know the ropes. You can check the list of music-related deletions to see if you know any others (here Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music), for instance. Thanks again for the High Tide rec, I've listened to it 4-5 times in the past week! Also, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) might prove interesting for you. Luminifer (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, [1] (since you're involved) Luminifer (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is your account set up so that your email addess is valid? Luminifer (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't blame you. I'd definitiely be interested in further exchanges of bands to check out, though. Let's see if we can figure out a way to do that once I leave.. Luminifer (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more advice

It's not ideal, but many people here, especially people who will be arguing with you, prefer to discuss policy more than actual facts.. so if you can back up whatever you are trying to say with actual wikipedia policy, unfortunately, that's the best way to go about making changes.. Luminifer (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your message

You scouring articles, changing genres and what not (such as this) to fit your agenda is very much POV and the definition of a troll. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 20:44, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

[2] Luminifer (talk) 23:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Def Leppard Genres

The reason why I put "pop metal" in the genres was because the Rolling Stone Article mentioned that as one of their genres. I don't know why that got changed to "hair metal" or "glam metal" though.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dang, you have good eyes. I would've missed that connection between "pop metal," "glam metal" and "hair metal." BTW the "pop metal" idea I had came from the magazine (I won't add it though).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: sab

To be honest with you I find this discussion mind numbing. You asked for my opinion and I gave it; the most defining genre goes in the infobox, anything else in the article (with appropriate references). I think that folks sometimes give you a harder time than you deserve, so when you make a point that gets ignored (ie Paranoid (song)) I'll speak up but not when I disagree. I'm not saying that Black Sabbath aren't hard rock, I just am against it in the box. To be honest I'm starting to drift to the opinion that no genres belong in the infobox. Make life easier for yourself and drop this crusade, you will find Wikipedia much more enjoyable and fulfilling. There are lots of articles that need work and you are a very dedicated editor, putting your energy into improving lesser articles will make MUCH more of an impact than adding protpunk to an infobox. Good luck J04n(talk page) 19:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I hope I didn't come off wrong above. My point is that you obviously put a lot of time and effort into your editing and it's a shame that so much of it gets reverted. J04n(talk page) 20:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

I responded on my talk page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Highway to Hell

I've reverted you at Highway to Hell. It is not up to anyone else to prove that something isn't true. You provide a source to verify that this album is heavy metal. If it's so obvious, that won't be hard. You might want to read Wikipedia:Citing sources. Furthermore, just because a statement has been on the article for a long time, does not make it any truer. It should have been removed a long time ago. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source needs to be unambiguous, as stated in the guideline. The source you added stated the genre was Pop Rock. Having heavy metal "stylings" does not make something HM. There don't need to be sources for rock or blues rock because they are not contentious or likely to be challenged. If you wish, sources for those can be found. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for blues-rock from a professional review. I don't think it was particularly necessary but it's to show the kind of thing that should be added for certain contentious genres. A genre becomes contentious when one or more editors dispute it. It's easy to add cites, as I see you often do, but it's important to show that the source unambiguously describes the article subject as the genre you mean. I saw you added a source to say Black Sabbath Vol 4 was "sludge metal", but that source is really shaky, nd not properly formatted. Is it a book? I'm not going to revert it because a) I wouldn't necessarily object to that genre being used for this album, and b) I don't want you to think I'm just trying to attack you. I'm completely acting in good faith, I just want certain genres to be fairly sourced, and not just added because some people think they should. The allmusic source is currently used on many of the AC/DC albums from Back in Black onwards, and it does not suffice to verify the HM genre. I'm less bothered about those albums because some of them do in places verge on HM, particularly from Flick of the Switch onwards. Highway to Hell does not, in my view, but if a decent source can be found, then fine. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citing books can be a bit of a pain to be honest, but Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners is helpful, as is WP:CITE#HOW. Often, just copying what others have done is a good way, as you have done on occasions. The Vol.4 source is a bit shaky for the exact reason you mentioned - each review is done by a different person, and we don't know who they are. If you cite the name of the guy who wrote that particular review as well as the overall editor (Chow), that would be better. As I say though, not many people would argue with the genre you put in, so it's not hugely important. The excerpt you posted about the Highway to Hell album isn't suitable because the reference to metal is an incidental reference to Angus' school suit and the world of metal as a whole, not a specific reference to the album being metal. It might serve as a vague reference to the band being metal, but not the album. What would be needed is a professional review specifically describing the album or song(s) from the album as heavy metal, a bit like the Rolling Stone one I posted describing it as blues rock. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a more acceptable source. I don't like it, because Highway to Hell is simply not a HM album, but that's the problem with genres on Wikipedia. If I found an otherwise reliable source to say that Madonna was HM, it could go in. It's all utterly subjective. To my mind, an album can't be both blues-rock and heavy metal. HM is devoid of blues influence - it's a non-sequitur. But yes, that's the kind of source you need, I believe. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The blues did give birth to metal, but metal left them behind. You're right about Sabbath, but then I wouldn't class the early Ozzy era as metal, to be honest. I'd class the first album as heavy blues-rock, and the bluesy side of it was gradually swamped as the early 70s went on. There's very little recognisable blues structure by the time of, say, "Vol. 4". That's just my opinion, and it's a minority one, but the HM tag was retrospectively added to their music. HM didn't really exist at that time. Zeppelin were never metal, way too folky. This is the thing, people never agree on genres ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see what someone else thinks about this kind of thing, and you obviously know your music. I do see the Cream influence on the first Sabbath album, and Cream were certainly one of those bands who showed the way from blues to metal. I just believe that there's a very small crossing point between the two, before you leave blues and become metal. Sabbath seemed a bit directionless prior to their first album, and "The Rebel" is a case in point, though I do like it. They used to heavy-up old rock 'n' roll covers like "Blue Suede Shoes" as well. I agree with you about "Warning" and up to a point, "Wicked World" - the basic structure is a blues one, but there are considerable deviations already. I wouldn't say "Sleeping Village" is a blues, it's too folky. I'd say the rest was just heavy rock, though I do take your point about "N.I.B.". "Paranoid" was more metal, stuff like "War Pigs" and "Iron Man" cross the line from rock to metal, though "Fairies Wear Boots" is more bluesy. I'd still disagree about Zeppelin, despite those who say they were metal! I just think that makes the HM umbrella too big - it would end up covering just about everything, though they were clearly a huge influence. Judas Priest were metal, to my mind, almost from the start. Only "Rocka Rolla" was more of a mish-mash of styles, even then, I wouldn't say blues was one of them. There's a hard boogie style on the title track, halfway to Status Quo, but others like "Dying to Meet You" are well on their way to metal. "Sad Wings" was a metal album. I think quite a few bands took blues to a pretty heavy point, but to my mind, however heavy they got, they never became metal because they were too bluesy. Bands like Free, Captain Beefheart, even Fleetwood Mac ("Green Manalishi" etc) all got very heavy at times whilst always retaining a strong blues vibe. "Green Manalishi" is an interesting example, because while Fleetwood Mac's original was blues-rock, Judas Priest's version was metal. While the blues structure is still there, there is no blues feel or tone at all. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is all very interesting - unfortunately wikipedia is apparently (by its policies) not the place for these discussions - or this information. My beliefs: Zep wasn't really metal - but it depends how you define it. If you define it as an actual compositional aspect (vs. instrumental - i.e. a "song" is metal, not a "performance" of a song), then Iron Man is probably up there. The song Black Sabbath would be too. I usually think of the earliest metal song as Mandrake Root by Deep Purple - though that's borderline. Highway Star has metal technique, but the song itself is pretty rock-n-roll/bluesy. Flower Travellin' Band did some early 70s metal (see the song "Kamikaze"), as did the Flying Hat Band... It'd be interesting for us all to start a new wiki and really hammer this stuff out, no? Luminifer (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a lot about BOC but from what I know, I wouldn't say they were heavy metal. I agree about Priest's first album, but I see you've added "Let There Be Rock" and "Dirty Deeds" as HM albums, using the same list. Surely even you must agree that Dirty Deeds is a long way from heavy metal, despite its presence on this list. This is where the genre thing loses all credibility - Dirty Deeds is nothing like metal, nothing like it at all. Which of those songs is metal? "There's Gonna Be Some Rockin'" perhaps? It's barmy. Do you think "Powerage" is metal? Luminifer - yes, it's all interesting stuff, and I need to check out "Mandrake Root" and those other two bands you mention, but as you can see, sometimes it's hard to find common ground! Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It helps to define what we're talking about first :) Another good early metal song : Caesar VII by Sir Lord Baltimore... and then, I think you can also mention Billy Joel / Attila's Holy Moses as proto thrash metal... which is _another_ thing entirely :) ... Luminifer (talk) 16:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, thrash is a different thing again. It's important to define genres or else some can become enormous. Rockgenre, yes, we should remain open-minded, but not so open-minded that almost anything can be defined as heavy metal. You could find a source to say a lot of things are metal, whether they actually are or not, and we have to be a little bit selective. Genre is a subjective thing after all, and as such, it's a slight anomaly within the normal Wikipedia constraints of NPOV etc. Right now we have "Dirty Deeds" as the same genre as Sabbath Vol 4, which seems dumb. I agree with you about Aerosmith and Thin Lizzy, and I'm removing HM from Lizzy's infobox. They had one metal album, "Thunder and Lightning", and that's about it, so as you say, to call them a metal band is an exaggeration. Infoboxes are supposed to be generalisations of the article and it's not good to list every genre that a band could possibly fall under. I'll be checking out those recommendations though, I've never heard of High Tide. I like Iron Butterfly, and I'd throw in Atomic Rooster and Lucifer's Friend as well, for (respectively) some prog-metal and nailed-on early heavy metal as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Primus & Blender

Hey, I saw your edit on the Primus page for the genre. Just wanted to say the following:

• Do not cite from Blender, it is a blog and an unreliable source.
• Even if Blender was a reliable source, the quote itself is in a sarcastic context, and is not intended to be informative.

For now, I'm going to remove the progressive rock tag. On that note, perhaps it's best not to have both prog metal and prog rock in the same infobox as it appears unnecessary, as Primus is widely regarded as a metal band by the consensus. Feel free to drop me a line if you have any objection. BreakerLOLZ (talk) 05:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Get Funky 2: Electric Boogaloo

Regarding funk metal. Honestly, if it were up to me, I would have funk metal as its own subgenre on the article. But there's no funk metal article, it's just a part of the funk rock article. You're right in that I wouldn't find many sources saying Red Hot Chili Peppers were alt metal, partly because (and I think you'll agree with me on this) they're not an alt metal band. Or even a metal band. They are an alt rock band, however. Their fusion of rock and funk was a huge influence on the bands that are legitimately funk metal - Primus, Faith No More, Living Colour (am I missing any?) - but in themselves they were not funk metal or alt metal. And with regards to the Led Zeppelin song... yeah, the song itself could qualify, but the band wouldn't. I've got a weird position on this subject: I think personally it should be there, but I'm siding with Wikipedia and putting it as a part of the alt metal section, simply because funk metal doesn't have its own article.

However, what you could do is create the "funk metal" article, with sources. If you need any help with it, I could provide it. I mean, rap metal is on the subgenre list because it's got an article, so once funk metal has an article, it should be fine to put on the list.

Hm. It seems I've avoided being rude with this message. That's a first for me: an actual constructive debate. :) --LordNecronus (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Primevil (band)

A tag has been placed on Primevil (band) 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 or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles 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. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} 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 page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Victão Lopes ^I hear you... 01:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Cromagnon (band)

The article Cromagnon (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not connecting for me in notability in any way. #163/200 songs of the 60s on a low-volume music. All references given are just to generic database pages and nothing of any substance; actually, the one link to an album review is a review for a different band, and one of the info pages has no text. So, no official band info that can be confirmed past a very empty allmusic entry and no other resources. See WP:NOTDIR, this article would, at best, be a copy of that allmusic information, and that below any even generous notability standard, sorry...

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Cromagnon (band)

I have nominated Cromagnon (band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O hai

I noticed you seem to like the rock genre. Am I correct? (Albert Mond (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Actually, I was entirely unaware of Wiki Libs' now apparent sock puppet habits. What on earth was he (or she) doing which required the use of puppets? I always found his opinions respectable, although it seems we frequently disagreed. Also, who's the one called 'The Real Libs' who I see now and then? Rock's been nice. (Albert Mond (talk) 08:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

crogmanon

hi, i dont think you noticed this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cromagnon (band) (2nd nomination) since you havent posted on it yet. Aisha9152 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL

@ Master of Puppets (active in many guises on this page, I see). Sumbuddi (talk) 21:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LMFAO!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another one bites the dust Sumbuddi (talk) 03:20, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Libs AGAIN use sockpuppets?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos

I just took a look at the new page you created (Pop Metal), and it looks great. There's sources/references throughout the article and it looks well written (for its early stages). Keep up the good work.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Metal article

Yeah, who in their right mind would just DELETE that page? I'll work on getting it back. In the meantime, I left a few words on that user's page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject that you may be interested in

I just stumbled upon Wikipedia:WikiProject Music genres and thought of you. I don't know if you already participate but I didn't see your name on the list. See you around J04n(talk page) 12:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, looks like someone is looking for assistance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Genre Project. J04n(talk page) 14:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Robert Plant

If you feel that genres need to be added or changed, start a discussion on the article's talk page and try to gain consensus. Radiopathy •talk• 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get ready to Laugh

[3]--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 04:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pop metal

It is not customary to contact editors when deleting an article that has already undergone AFD, but irregarless, my apologies if you feel that I should have. The deletion was based on two two distinct concepts: 1) The subject is preceeded by more descriptive classifications in any situation it could be used, and never occludes them (as in, Metallica is thrash metal, irregaldess of whether one source for some reason called it pop metal) and 2) different sources have different ideas of what this blanket term that is barely used outside of the context speaking in a derogatory or simply uninformed manner about glam metal means. As far as I and the three - or two or maybe more, can't remember... but I followed them all - AFDs agree, there is no necessity to discuss its use in a different manner. Well, that's about it. This is in no way personal. Happy editing. --Sn0wflake (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An AfD you may want to comment on

Hi, you will probably have more insight than me on this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counterfolk. Also, I'll have to check out Elf doing "War Pigs", never heard it, sorry can't help with the ref. J04n(talk page) 20:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

in case you appreciate these silly things

		The Music Barnstar
		For working to contribute genuine new knowledge to wikipedia, not being discouraged by some users' attitudes towards newcomers, being open to interesting discussions, and continuing to contribute new useful information to wikipedia. Luminifer (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Luminifer's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Luminifer (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a problem here

[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg D. Barnes (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need some backup: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kingoomieiii#Me_reverting_the_genre_warrior_page--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just gonna go ahead and head you off at the pass. Not required, I have nothing to say to either of you on this matter. It's someone else's userspace, don't mess with it. --King Öomie 20:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having a page accusing a user of having a multiple account that's not backed up is a personal attack.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick St. Nicholas and Blue Cheer

You deleted Nick St. Nicholas as a former member of Blue Cheer. In the article text or footnotes, you should see a reference to a version of Blue Cheer playing in the 1970s with St. Nicholas--the only version in which Dickie Peterson was not playing bass. If you are satisfied with the sourcing here, could you please consider reversing your edit.

Dreadarthur (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your comments in response. I will have to find a better source in order to add Nick St. Nicholas to the Blue Cheer page. Thanks also for your views on Hasselvander. I didn't realize that he was regarded as a guest guitarist in Blue Cheer, rather than a full-fledged band member.

Dreadarthur (talk) 05:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice...

Hi Rockgenre,

Before you might be considered a Genre Warrior, please make sure you add a reference when editing articles. I noticed your edit to the artice on Axl Rose, adding heavy metal to the infobox. The 'hard rock' bit wasn't sourced either... but two wrongs don't make a right of course. Anyway, thanks for your time and effort, and happy editing! --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 16:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

File:Father Winter Solstice.jpg

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec09}} to your friends' talk pages.

thanks!

I haven't looked at the article yet, but I will (been so busy)! I occasionally check your contributions here for more suggestions. This is totally up to you, but I wonder if you could (if you think appropriate) look at (and maybe act in if you think appropriate) this problematic edit-war I'm having here, where someone keeps removing basically ALL of a page: [5][6]... I'm not in the wrong here, am I? Anyway I'm not going to edit that page again (I only noticed because someone contacted me about it), I already got warned for it (!)... Also if you haven't heard FTB yet you really should check it out - I think you'd like Satori, though my favorite is Made In Japan (I think). Luminifer (talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Iommi

Sorry, but I have reverted your edits to the Honorific nicknames article--there are a lot of guitar players that are called that, and the CMJ quote is placed in a conditional or hypothetical mode. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Styx, Suite Madame Blue riff resemblance to Coven song opening

You commented on my addition of this information, which was actually undone by someone else later. Realistically, unless it's actually noted in some already published source by, say, a music critic, the only way to confirm this kind of information is to listen to both songs. It may be too much to ask of the rank & file, but collectors with copies of both albums, like myself, can attest. Pzzp (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dee Dee Ramone

Hi, I don't care if it stays or not but Dee Dee did try his hand as a rapper after he left the Ramones, see Standing in the Spotlight. Happy New Year J04n(talk page) 04:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a really bad album, just family stuff for the holiday. Take care and keep fighting the good fight. J04n(talk page) 18:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

Stop adding genres that reflect your opinion just because one source says so, and reverting any change that you personally disagree with. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Read my statements over at Talk:Heavy metal music and Talk:Kid Rock. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• You really need to stop making edits based on your dislike of another editor. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• RG, you are completely wrong about the POV-pushing, and it is you who is editing against consensus. There was already a consensus in place for alternative metal, and it is the best-sourced genre for that album. You can't just add every single genre ever sourced for any album because you dislike me and want to dick me around. You are extremely out of line and rude. There are warnings all over your talk page for edit-warring, genre-changing, and POV pushing. You clearly are not in a position to make accusatory statements of actions for which you are most definitely guilty of. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Final Warning for Edit Warring at Kid Rock

Please see my comments here, which pertain to you. Overall, I believe you're capable of working it out without causing further disruption to the article. Please don't prove me wrong. NJA (t/c) 10:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a bias against a music genre term. Making ridiculous accusations against me does not change the fact that you have no right to make ridiculously unsubstianted edits to any article that I am involved with because you personally dislike me. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

FYI

I happened to notice your talk page when I was looking for a link you sent me.. How's things? Just wanted to point out this policy subsection as it might be useful to you (judging by some conflicts you seem to be involved in) : WP:CCC... Enjoy! Luminifer (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Various incivilities

Stop wasting your time with this and cut loose. The sources go against your opinions. Your attitude is extremely disruptive and uncivil. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 19:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• RG, yes, you are the one who reverted against consensus three times. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

What you just did over at the Roots article, is pretty damning evidence of your POV pushing. I posted a listing of all of the sourced genre terms on the talk page, for God's sake. Clearly, "heavy metal" is the term that comes up the most often. Discuss before editing! And the source says "incorporates elements of", implying that the album isn't in that genre, but has elements of that genre. Pay attention. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I am trying to help you, but repeatedly falsely accusing me of attacking you, making various other untrue claims, attacking me, and trying to push your own POV does not help your case. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you

Thank you very much, you made my night, and by the way I've been meaning to tell you that I like your new signature. Take care J04n(talk page) 03:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

your opinion

Hello Rockgenre we need you to opine on the talk page of Led Zeppelin. The sources claim that Led Zeppelin is a hard rock band, but not the parents of the same. The history says the parents of hard rock are Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Jeff Beck. The same sources call Led Zeppelin one of the fathers of heavy metal. There is a POV about it that was imposed without consensus. The first paragraph stable as we knew it was amended by a partial view. Reliable and reputable sources are removed and an editor imposes his POV that Led Zeppelin is the progenitor of hard rock. How Led Zeppelin may be the parent hard rock if it existed before them? LZ is the progenitor of metal, not hard rock. Your opinion would be welcome. Have a nice day! Paulotanner (talk) 03:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Sabbath is not sludge metal

Hey, please, many critics can barely distinguish between one metal style and another. I'm removing the sludge metal thing from Black Sabbath Vol. 4. There are no hardcore punk influences in that.

Forgot to sign: Gothbag (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette alert

Hi RG! I have added comments at the Witiquette discussion. --Diannaa (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

There is no consensus. The genres for Roots reflect the sources CLEARLY listed on the article's talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Yourself and yourself are not a consensus. Stop editing against the sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Again, the consensus and sources are clear and listed. Stop adding repetitive phrases based on your opinion and a bias against me. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• The sources are clearly listed on the talk page, and you can't claim that sources that state an album which "incorporates elements" of a genre is actually a part of that genre. And there are no sources stating that it is a groove metal album. READ THE SOURCES ON THE TALK PAGE AND PAY ATTENTION! Stop reverting against consensus and sourced material, or you will be banned. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
• I have requested additional comment on this issue to add credence to the consensus that was already in place based on what is sourced. Do not change the genres on this article, or you will be banned. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Libs

There is no appeals process for an unblock. If you can find someone willing to compromise the community's trust by wheel-warring an administrative decision, go right ahead. (And from that page- in this case, the 'reverted action' is the unblock- the block being the action itself). Except in the case of ArbCom sanctions, blocks are purely judgment calls on the behalf of the blocking admin. --King Öomie 13:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Faith No More and Kid Rock

See Template:Infobox_musical_artist#Parameters: "The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality". Funk metal is a subgenre of funk rock. Rap metal is a subgenre of rap rock, which is a style of rock music. You can't add genres which an artist only performed for one album. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Deep Purple

Hi RockGenre, just wanted to say thanks for the support on the Deep Purple genre question - I hope a reasonable discussion ensues! Random name (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have no idea what you're talking about

Unlike the silly kids who come to this site and put this false information everywhere, I actually KNOW as a FACT that Deep Purple, Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin are HARD ROCK and NOT, by ANY MEANS AT ALL Heavy Metal. Sabbath and Deep Purple themselves have stated clearly many times that they are NOT HEAVY METAL. You are putting false information on this site, which is why this place is so unreliable. I am cleaning it up and making it more accurate. I would guess you are clearly much younger than me, I was brought up with these bands and I know better. The same with the stupid idea that "heavy metal" started in the late 60's. It DID NOT. It started in the mid 70's, I know, because I saw it form. Being the "forefather" of heavy metal does NOT MAKE YOU HEAVY METAL YOURSELF. It is you who is vandalising this website by putting false information on these bands pages after they have made clear several million times that they are NOT what everyone keeps saying they are. It is also easy to hear the difference. If I had the power, it would be people like YOU who would be blocked because you are making this site an unreliable source of information. IF you think you're right, ask the bands themselves. Then maybe you will change how you think. But I doubt it. Take care. MusicDatabase (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Do you research, find the sources yourself and see that I am right. I was BROUGHT UP with this music, message the bands and you will have your sources. I will give you links to their official pages if you desire. I did not insult you, I schooled you. Seems to me, you can't take it. It is not my personal opinon at all, it is a fact and if you message the bands you will see it. Block me if you like, but it just shows that you're site in an unreliable information source. Which it is. I came here to help but seems you like being wrong about everything here.MusicDatabase (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Good work last night

		The Resilient Barnstar
		I came across your edits from last night/yesterday. You dealt with a difficult situation quite well. Keep up the good work. J04n(talk page) 08:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I saying on Sumbuddi's talk before he removed it

[7] - Scarian^Call me Pat! 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Black Death (American band)

I have nominated Black Death (American band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Black Death (American band). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Duribald (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Kid Rock and FNM

I guess that's the reason why my talk page has a pile of warnings over neutrality-based edits. Oh, wait, no, it doesn't, that's your talk page. (Sugar Bear (talk) 23:21, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

List of nu metal bands

STOP removing tags from articles. The citations do not back up what the editor who added them claim they back up. And in one instance, the citation actually says that one of the inclusions (Kid Rock) is not nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Again, the sources do not say what the person who added them claims they say. Opinion can run two ways. You can't add bands that you feel are nu metal to the list, and I can't remove bands that I feel aren't nu metal when the source says otherwise. But, in the case of the sources cited, nothing is being said. And, no, the source does not say that Kid Rock is nu metal. It says that he doesn't perform nu metal. The person who added the source even admits as such himself here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

You're one to talk of "irony" when you scream at me to stop doing the one thing that I'm not doing - the one thing that you are doing. Why don't you stop POV pushing, and contribute? Oh, wait, you can't, because you've been blocked for POV pushing. (Sugar Bear (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Sig

You have a ridiculous number of edits like these ([8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19])- multiple hundreds. Is there a problem with your signature markup in your Preferences? It looks like it's currently

[[User:Rockgenre|RG]]  ([[User talk:Rockgenre|talk]])Rockgenre

-The trailing 'Rockgenre' is your problem. My concern is the number of potential edit conflicts you might be causing performing a small edit after every single talkpage edit. --King Öomie 14:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Gasoline (band)

The article Gasoline (band) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NBAND.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nymf _talk/contr. 15:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Gasoline (band)

I have nominated Gasoline (band), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gasoline (band). 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.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Nymf _talk/contr. 18:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring after being specifically told not to change Kid Rock's genres until a consensus had been reached. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

It is not okay to keep edit warring just because the block has ended. The block is meant as a severe warning, so treat it as such. Nymf _talk/contr. 22:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Jauerback's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Jauerback's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kid Rock: Nu Metal

I think this should solve the problem:

[20]--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on Kid Rock's talk page. I'll step in when needed.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

In reguards to your edits at Black Sabbath, please use the "Edit Summary" to inform and explain to other editors of your reasons for your edit(s). In this particular instance the Font characters were too small for anybody who was looking to see, maybe it's just me "you know" my sight isn't what it use to be.Here is what anybody looking would see, See how hard it is to locate your edit. If you ever have any questions let me know Thanx Mlpearc MESSAGE 06:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Warpig

The article Warpig you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . Although what you have so far is well done, the article is too small to be considered a Good Article. Please take a look at my initial review on the review page to see what work needs to be done. If you can get some substantial improvements into it within a week, it may still pass, otherwise it will fail. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 13:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One source

As stated repeatedly, you cannot add content based on one source. Each article you work on has to be extensively researched, and the content should correspond with the overall consensus of source. One source stating, for example, that Black Sabbath's debut album influenced goth music, does not mean that that is true! That is one person's opinion. That's not enough to add that kind of information to the article. One source may state that Frank Zappa was the first person to rap. That doesn't make that source accurate. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Please stop edit warring. Look up our guidelines and the overall brevity of sources for each article you work on and stop bickering with other editors based on the opinions of one author. One author's opinion does not a fact make! (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your reply on my talk page

I replied.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal Source (Kid Rock)

[21]

Can it get anymore obvious?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rockgenre for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Sugar Bear (talk) 16:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I replied on my talk page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Rock, again

The inclusion or removal of specific genres is not what this issue is about. Secondly, the newly-added sources are a concert tickets website and a book by a journalist who is not a music expert. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• There was no consensus for your POV. The consensus was to keep the genres generalized, per the guidelines. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Please stop mocking me. There's no consensus to justify your actions, or the inclusion of poor sources, such as a book that was not written by a music expert, and a concert ticket site. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• I did that, and all I got back was "you're just trying to ruin the article because you hate Kid Rock and nu metal". And, seriously, you were mocking me. I don't see how you can justify stating that you weren't, considering that you fed back to me something that I told you, which, by the way, still holds true. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Non Free Files in your User Space

Hey there Rockgenre, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:Rockgenre/Experiments. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets Try to Mend things between the 3 of us (Me, You, SB)

[22]--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 05:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to apologize for stating that you and Greg were the same person. I was clearly wrong there. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

RE: Kid Rock

Hello, and thanks for the interest. The reasons behind my skepticism of the three (and I now see four) sources supplied is because, well, I'll list them below:

1. The first source, the Friedlander 2006 link, is something that I have clicked on several times; every time I have clicked on it, the page did not change. Not only that, but it seems to link to a section in the article that doesn't exist.
2. The passage is seemingly like a passing mention of Kid Rock and nu-metal and doesn't focus on it enough.
3. There seems to be the last name of an author, year, and page supplied, but no book title is specified.
4. It is a concert ticket-selling site that doesn't mention nu-metal.

I won't say that Kid Rock isn't nu metal, but I wouldn't depend my opinion on the genre of Kid Rock's music on such sources. I just noticed that the alternate version contains the [[Rock music|rock]] aspect, which I don't usually support. I wouldn't condemn that in this case, though. Usually, such sortings (or as far as I have noticed) has been mainly assigned to mainstream music or close thereof.

Also, you did imply correctly that that would likely be my last posting on the Kid Rock talk page concerning this edit war. As I hinted at, I usually deal with music which is lesser-known than the likes of Kid Rock. I felt like voicing my opinion on the issue and then getting out of there, or so to speak. Also, I don't usually (but not never) have articles on my watchlist that hav such frequent editing such as, say, 50 edits in the last 12 days; there are wikiprojects on my watchlist, though, that do get their respective talk pages frequently updated. It doesn't mean I won't ever have an article with such active editing on my watchlist (I have in the past); it's just that it's not as likely for me to have such articles in my watchlist.

Backtable _{Speak to me}^concerning my deeds. 03:38, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You also take care. Hopefully the situation can be solved amicably. Backtable _{Speak to me}^concerning my deeds. 21:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sleaze Roxx

Hi, as you might have noticed I am a big fan of glam metal and 80s metal in general. I believe that Sleaze Roxx is one of the best sites for gathering news on the subject, regarding both old and new bands. I also think that it offers good and accurate reviews and info. Would you say it could be possible to crate an article for Sleaze Roxx? I have read the article on notability for web content, but due to my short editing experience I'm not sure. This is why I would be happy if you could give me your advice, since I know you have much more experience. Thank you in advance! FateForger (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for giving me your advice. Unfortunately, I had reason to doubt about it. If Sleaze Roxx is not reliable as a source either, then some sources of the List of glam metal albums should be changed. Do you think it is necessary? Talking about House of Lords, I'm very happy you found that alternative source, as they were a sort of continuation of Giuffria (now I also have the possibility to learn how to format books). Moreover, there are some other bands like Tyketto and Tangier which I would have liked to include, but I did not find a reliable source. What do you think about them? I believe they should be on the list. Again thank you very much for everything and for sharing your knowledge and experience with me. FateForger (talk) 21:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations must properly source the text

If the cited books/articles do not state the information that is supposed to be backed up by them, they should not be included. We are not in the business of using Wikipedia to push our own POV. The sources must back up the information cited. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Slander

If you accuse me of POV pushing once again, I am taking you to the incivilities noticeboard. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• None of your edits are based on the sources or guidelines. All of your edits are based on your personal opinion. For you to tell me that my edits are based on my opinion is insulting and offensive. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I would suggest not responding to this kind of thing anymore. We have consensus and the issue is settled. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groove metal

Sorry RG, but I had to remove your PROD: if an article has been taken to AfD, it can't be PRODded anymore. Drmies (talk) 05:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my money, it's as notable as any of the other genres flying around Wikipedia, and if you don't have an opinion on it, with respect I'd suggest it's apparently the only genre that you don't have an opinion on. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that the whole genre argument is arbitrary and subjective. A genre apparently exists if a self-appointed expert says it does, but the ordinary Joe's opinion is worthless. The criteria for reliable sources regarding genres are very unencyclopedic, but Wikipedia persists with it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, RG. I've began adding sources as to why the genre has been notable, particularly the one I have now where it's used in a major newspaper. --SKATER ^Speak. 14:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Featured List

Thank you very much for letting me know and for including my name as one of the major contributors. It was a pleasure for me to help you create the list, because I am a big fan of glam metal and because I've learnt a lot from you. I hope it will pass! FateForger (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Skater's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--SKATER ^Speak. 19:51, 23 April 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Torchiest's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Scieberking's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, Scieberking (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck

Good luck with List of glam metal bands and artists. I would comment but it is the two things that I try to keep my nose out of, lists and genre discussions. Looks like a lot of work went into it though. Take care J04n(talk page) 21:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. keep your cool and only address comments constructively. J04n(talk page) 21:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Metalcore

Hello, Rockgenre. You have new messages at Gunmetal Angel's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Groove reversions

Instead of just reverting good faith edits someone has made to an article, why don't you actually take a look at the talk page to see if one of the many, many refs I put there will fit the bill? I've taken the time to find sources, the least you can do is help instead of hinder. Just a thought. – B.hotep •talk• 13:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One – Two with an accusation of inserting false information thrown in for good measure – 3 have a read of WP:VANDAL. – B.hotep •talk• 20:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be kind enough to respect the {{inuse}} template. – B.hotep •talk• 22:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

By definition it takes two users to edit war. I'm not sure why you weren't blocked as well as Sugar Bear but I wouldn't expect it to happen like this again if you edit war in the future. Bear in mind that the only exception to the policy on edit warring is reverting blatant and obvious vandalism. For content disputes request page protection or dispute resolution as needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Ban of Sugar Bear/Ibaranoff24. Thank you.— Dædαlus^Contribs 00:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I would really like to know why you deleted my comment over at WP:ANI. N419BH 00:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. I've placed my comment back. If you get an "edit conflict," please make sure you don't accidentally delete someone else's post when you repost yours. I'm guessing that's what happened. Oh well. No harm, no foul. Thanks! N419BH 00:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For handling so much conflict for months and months, and finally getting to a resolution that eliminates the problem and lets us all get back to editing. —Torchiest ^talk/contribs 17:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving.--Beeblebrox (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]