User talk:USEDfan

Hi other wiki users

anything you need to talk about to me with can be done here, thanx. USEDfan (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Template:The Used

WOW! Good idea sorting the singles by album. It works perfectly. I'm impressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New album

The vibe I was getting was that they are going in a much further direction from their original sound than Lies for the Liars, which makes me worried. However, I like that it isn't going to be over-produced, which is what contributed to their getting progressively divergent, and thus, worse. Don't get me wrong, they're still a great band. It's just that they haven't been able to top their first album yet, and they clearly have the talent to do so. In Love and Death wasn't bad, considering what Bert went through at the time, but it wasn't great either. Lies was really bad, though the b-sides were great. I think they tried too hard to be "different" from their sound. The band actually said that they weren't putting as much thought into that release as they did for their other ones. Now they want to be more "different", so it's possible that this album will be their worst. But maybe the different approach will produce something unexpectedly good. Not trying to dampen your spirits, I'm excited too. But they've disappointed before. One of these days, I'll start the article on their 4th album. Just have to get everything in order so that it won't get deleted again :| --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't saying change was bad, it's just that they are changing from something that was unique, and are starting to sound like every other band. I think we can both agree that for In Love and Death, they changed their sound, but still sounded like themselves, whereas Lies for the Liars was a complete "makeover". You can evolve and "mature" within your style, without a complete change for every album, and without sounding "the same". Anyway, I found out about this site, Wikinfo, where you can write from a "sympathetic point of view", instead of a neutral one, and original research is welcome. Maybe you can write a nice and biased article about The Used there. Currently, there is nothing written about them. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Branden and The Used

I hate to beat a dead horse here, but I can't let this go about Branden being kicked out of the band. I don't doubt your good intentions, but here are the facts I've seen: The Used said in their statement regarding Branden (available here), "We felt that we needed to move forward without Branden as our drummer." That's indisputably a polite way of saying they kicked him out. Nowhere did they say it was a mutual departure. If a girl tells her boyfriend that she needs to "move on" in her life, that doesn't mean it's a "mutual departure." The statement referenced in the article, and available here, says nothing of "parting ways."

If you have a link or other source that says, "This is a mutual departure," by all means, I'd love to see it. Until then, editing The Used's article to say they lied about kicking out Branden is inaccurate and maybe even defamatory. Please stop reverting it. Thanks. See Jay (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Genre section

It's a good start. I like what you've done so far. The page really needed more content than just the bio. The section needs work though. I'll see what I can do...

Just wondering.. do you have any photos that can go in the article? It could use more pics. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I think there should be a better photo in the infobox, I was talking about performance pictures, or anything else that can fit into the bio. It's kinda boring right now without pics. If you look at other band articles, especially the more mainstream ones, there's photos in the bio/history, and it really adds to the article. Just something I been thinking about for a while, that there should be more pics. Sure, there's ones on google, but non-free images require fair use rationales, and that can be complicated. Better if you can provide a photo you've taken yourself. And yes, I did see that the new album info has been changed. I noticed that the interview with Jeph is gone, and I'm wondering why. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The Used article

Yeah, it really has improved over the past 6 months or so. A way we can make it better is if we make a proper lead section for the article. I wrote one a couple months ago I think, and you and some other user deleted it because the information was "already in the bio". But we need a summary of the article, in order to entice the reader to continue reading the whole thing. We should also try to get it to the level of good article, and eventually featured status. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for creating the genre section. It has definitely helped with organization and the edit wars going on. I edited it a bit to make it sound a little better, and I removed the reference to Last.fm (Wikipedia does not allow references to open wikis), but other than that, good move. Also, if you could find another source instead of the Last.fm one, that would be great. (I don't know if you added it, but either way...) Thanks again! -- FatalError (t|c) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello again USEDfan. Remember me? Your edits over the last month or two have yet again been brought to my attention, and that is usually not a good thing. I'd like to sincerely congratulate you on the efforts you have put into working with others and collaborating on producing fine articles, but I also have a darker message that you need to hear. Your alternate accounts will never again make another edit. This is the only account you will ever use. Additionally, I never want to see another message on this talk page about edit warring. If you find yourself in a dispute you are not to make any reverts but must only work with others on the talk pages, always remembering to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you do not follow this advice you are likely to be indefinitely blocked, and probably not by me either. Please don't bother to object to this message, you are aware of our policies on disruption and blocking, and you also know that I know what I'm talking about. Again I'd like to thank you for working with others. Please leave any reverting to them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

SilverOrion

Nobody agrees with him, so I think we're good. If he starts changing it his way, we'll just report it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop attacking him with every chance you get. I realize that he is the reason The Used's article got locked, but it's just really annoying. Just ignore him. If he actually tries to change something, you can report him for vandalism or whatever, but until then, just let him go. Also, a little off-topic, but please don't make 50 different sections about the same topic on talk pages, it's really hard to follow. Thanks. -- FatalError 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, we're not friends. I don't know you. Reaching an agreement with me about a Wikipedia article does not make you my friend. Let me just get out of the way. I'm sorry, but the immature way you act with everyone is the reason I wrote that on SilverOrion's talk page. "thats because every1 is wrong, and im right, the way i see it its either my way or my way" ([1]). Those things don't help. Anyway, about SilverOrion..."i make good edits and remove vandalism." You got into an edit war. I do realize that it was mostly SilverOrion's fault, as you must have read in the message I sent him, but you didn't help much by fighting with him. Just silently report him to an admin, no need for a huge war that causes the article to get locked. -- FatalError 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Demos from the Basement

I was wondering why you keep removing the external links. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, album articles usually do link to videos of songs from the album. So you're wrong about that. And I'm not suggesting in the slightest that every song from every album should be linked to, because that violates Wikipedia's external links policy. But this is a demo album, which means it was never meant to be sold. It even says in the article that they gave it away for free. Anyone who's looking for the tracks on this album is obviously a big fan and would have all their records, so the "giving away for free" argument is moot. Wikipedia is a place where people come to find things out, so they would be searching for it if they stumbled upon the page. It's encyclopedic to include the two links, because that version of "Box Full of Sharp Objects" is what got them signed, and "The Taste of Ink" is the one that was changed the most for their debut. They also happen to be the two singles from their first album that are on this one. You're just being elitist because you have a copy of the record. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would have to side with USEDfan on this one. Even though it is a demo and given away for free, there are still copyrights associated with each song. Unless the YouTube videos are official, then I don't think that wikipedia can directly link to them. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

YouTube Videos

I have posted a query regarding the video links on Demos from the Basement here. Can we agree not to add/remove until we get a response please? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The Used in the studio

That's great news! --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not too disappointed, because they've been working a lot faster than usual, so a few months' delay is not a big deal. --Pwnage8 (talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No.

My user page says no such thing... Now, if you don't have anything constructive to say, please do not bother me again. Nouse4aname (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and then I returned, see the line below. I noticed those additions, and have reverted them myself a few times, try reporting it here or here. Nouse4aname (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI

I have started a thread here regarding your recent behavior. You are welcome to come and share your thoughts on the matter. Landon1980 (talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for general disruptive editing, issues dealing with WP:OWN and WP:NPA, and no evidence that previous warnings and blocks have done anything to help you become a more productive editor. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

USEDfan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

what? i barely edited anything in the past few days. i dont understand this at all, this ban truly is unjust and makes no sense at all. USEDfan (talk) 06:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You were actually pretty active in the last ten days since your previous block (I count somewhere around 150 edits). And all the same things happened again. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

USEDfan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

^^^Most of my edits were on talk pages, however my point is that i didnt violate any rules since my last block ended, and some user went and reported me for everything ive done since i been here, i already served a banned for everything i done on wiki. so pretty much i got a ban for everything that i already served a ban for, and thats not right, since my last ban edned i did a very good job avioding edit wars and all that, and just because some other wiki user takes everything i did wrong in my wiki career and puts it together i got banned, this ban now was uncalled for, if i was going to be banned i would of had to make an infragment, but i havent done anything wrong since my last ban ending, so pretty much since my last ban ending, i have not broke any rules so that means i got ban for things i already served a ban for and thats why i shud unblocked, to be banned again id have to break a rule, this ban should be removed completely, not just lessened in time, if the admin who reads this doesnt understand my point here, please send anohter admin over. cause it really makes no sense how an admin who never followed any of these things could just give me a indefinite ban for not doing any wrong. (remember the reason they ban me was for bans i already served and i havent crated any infagments since my last ban) USEDfan (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The evidence laid out at this thread shows significant disruption on your part. All of those edits presented as evidence have occurred since your previous block. Just because you didn't edit an article doesn't mean you weren't disruptive.— Metros (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

those were on talk pages they do not count as edits, my point is they banned me for edit warinng and 3rr when i alredy served my bans for all that stuff, this is the most ridiclous ban ever, USEDfan (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, edits to talk pages are still edits. You insulted people on the talk page. You showed ownership issues by saying you were the source for the article. You were uncivil towards others. All of this is disruptive regardless of the space where it occurred. Metros (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

i never did anything like that before tho, i only edit warred, so i shud of only gotten a warning > USEDfan (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

The consensus at AN/I is that, when your overall pattern of editing is considered, your disruption is too great, and your willingness to learn better or to change your way of editing is very limited. The time spent by other editors in trying to help you edit appropriately is excessive, and, considering how strenuously you resist learning, it appears to be mostly time wasted. After six blocks, you are still edit-warring, making personal attacks, and consistently writing with such appallingly bad English that it's difficult to understand you. You appear to be either unable to edit appropriately, or unwilling to learn how to edit appropriately, and all attempts to teach you have been fruitless. The community has been extraordinarily patient with you to give you a chance to learn, but now, the community's patience is exhausted. Your editing style is better suited to some part of the internet that doesn't require collaboration, such as your own private blog, but I agree with the consensus that Wikipedia is not a good fit for your specific way of working. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

the point is i shudnt be banned indefinitly, if that user didnt bash me on the admin page i wudnt be blocked right now, i did not do anything wrong since my alst block ended to be banned again. u have to wait to i make another infragment to ban me, i was banned for eveyrthing i already served a band for. USEDfan (talk) 19:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understood your point. My point was that you should be indefinitely blocked, because you show a long-term pattern of edit-warring, personal attacks, and bad grammar, and because the evidence suggests that you will never stop your disruptive editing. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

but i served those bands already so this is the second time i got a ban for the same thing,i cant be banned for what i already served a band for, if u want me to be ban 4evre u need to to create another infrackment, u cant just say okay this user hasnt done anything bad this week but just lets ban him forever for eveyrhting he already served a ban for, thats like some1 goingto jail for 1 year for car jack 10 years for car jacking again and thne a week after he served eveyrhting u put him back in jail for life. it doesnt make sense. and it doesnt make sense here with me either. USEDfan (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

All of the diffs I used are from June 13th, after your last block expired. I'm having trouble, though, understanding your message. Are you able to write it using Standard English? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way- what you are doing now is essentially why you are blocked. Because you appear to be unable to accept responsibility for your actions, and instead of gracefully learning from your mistakes, you want to argue indefinitely about why you weren't wrong. We're all tired of it. I know that you can do it indefinitely, so the only thing that will make it stop is if I stop replying. Which I will now do. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

how can i be blocked when i already served a ban for eveyrhting that i done?. USEDfan (talk) 19:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You were blocked because: 1) You have over a long period of time shown that you are not willing to work with other editors and abide by Wikipedia's rules; and 2) your editing after your block broke multiple rules. Your continued arguments here show that you do not understand the issues that have been carefully and repeatedly explained to you. If you continue to simply claim "I did nothing wrong after my last block" when you have been repeatedly shown that is not true, I will protect this page to prevent you continuing to disrupt it. Gwernol 19:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

fine, i have so many sock puppetts, i have about 100 accounts banned indefinitly anyway so w/e. i still have my othe rusedfan account, and ip adress, and my silverorion account, the silverorion was the ebst, i made it to cause a distraction adn i acted against eveyrthing i did on that account to try to draw attention away from this one, but o well at least that 1 isnt banned yet heheheh.USEDfan (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're finished here, then, don't you? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Used demo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Used demo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)