User talk:Alex 101/Archive 7

Peer Reviews

Hello, Alex. I've noticed that you are a prolific editor and a member of the Metal WikiProject. Would you mind contributing to a peer review of a metal band article? I've nominated three: Cannibal Corpse, Origin (band) and Symphony X. If you like, simply go to Wikipedia:Peer review and scroll down until you see one of these three articles, or any article for that matter. I appreciate any help you can give. Sincerely, Huntthetroll (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Offspring

No problem at all.

Smash

Hey Alex,

I noticed the edits of the IP over the claim that Smash is the best selling independent album of all time, and how the wording was changed to say one of the best selling ... . I have added extra sources that verify Smash as the best selling independent album of all time, and so I don't think we need to worry about the claims of this IP. They claim that Apple Records counts as an independent record label, although I find that claim rather dubious and there is no such claim on the main Apple Records article. I have restored the wording to reflect the additional sources I provided. I don't think we should worry about changing the wording to reflect the claims over The White Album unless they can provide sources that cite support this claim. Cheers, Nouse4aname (talk) 07:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Atom Willard

With respect, if all that can be said about something is that nothing is known about it, then it's best just to leave out any mention of it. Specifically, if all you can say is that it's unknown whether or not Willard will play on the future Social D album, then it doesn't merit the mention. Wait until there's a source that says he is, or a source that gives the album credits & shows that he's not. Don't introduce nebulous "unknowns" into the article. After all, we have no information about said upcoming album except that the band has been "working on it" for several years (and knowing Social D, it could be another 5 years before it materializes). Also, given the fact that it has been mere hours since the announcement that Willard joined the band, that fact really doesn't merit an entire section devoted to it. He hasn't even performed with them yet; try not to give undue weight to this very recent event.

Also, with regard to associated acts, please see Template:Infobox Musical artist#Associated acts. When it comes to bands, "Associated acts" are ones that the band in question has collaborated with on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together (example: Black Flag & the Minutemen, who performed together on Minuteflag, or Jay-Z & Linkin Park for the Collision Course mashup & tours). It also refers to groups which have spun off from the main group, or a group from which this group has spun off (example: The Adolescents spun off from Social Distortion, ALL is a spinoff of the Descendents). "Associated acts" does not mean every band that a particular member has ever been in. Just because Atom was in Alkaline Trio (just long enough to appear in 1 music video, by the way) does not make Alkaline Trio an "associated act" of Social Distortion, especially since his stint with Alkaline Trio occurred 8 years before joining Social D. If anything, the only act that Social D would be associated with via Atom would be Angels & Airwaves, as he is concurrently a member of both groups. If every band that every member (& former member) was ever in counted as an "associated act", then the list would be nearly a page long (Chuck Biscuits alone has been in over a dozen acts...almost none of which are "associated" with Social D). --IllaZilla (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Out of curiousity, are you also Alex101 on Punknews.org? I'm IllaZilla over there as well. I contributed the news blurb about Atom today, & just noticed your comments on it. I especially liked how I found out about it through this IP edit, verified it on Social D's site, submitted it to punknews, then used the punknews article as a ref. One hand washes the other, I guess :-) --IllaZilla (talk) 03:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Message from the My Chemical Romance task force

Hello!

You may be interested to know that the WikiProject My Chemical Romance has recently been transformed into a task force of WikiProject Emo. Please visit the task force page to see what's new. This move allies the task force with a larger WikiProject that handles much of the administrative overload, thus allowing task force members to focus on the most important activity: article improvement.

The project's membership list has also been moved to the new task force page. If you see that your username is in the "Inactive/former members" section, please do not take offense; this is because you no longer appear to be active on Wikipedia. We may also take the liberty of removing the member userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:My Chemical Romance task force members. Of course you are free to rejoin the task force and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active again.

For active editors, it is our hope that this change will help spur you to improve articles related to My Chemical Romance. You may have noticed that the old My Chemical Romance project userbox on your user page has automatically changed to the new task force userbox. We may take the liberty of fixing the template link on your userpage, to avoid redirects.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support the My Chemical Romance task force!

--IllaZilla (talk) 01:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Alex

I was just reading WP:LAME- thanks for showing me what not to do in the case of a SUPER_LAME edit war over THREE LETTERS! Seriously, did it really matter all that much —Preceding unsigned comment added by AYoungMan68 (talk • contribs) 05:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Thanks

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO I want to thank you for your hard editorial work. Feel free to display the following userbox:

This user helped promote Rise Against to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Brent Harding

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Brent Harding. 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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Matty (talk) 00:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In retrospect, I shouldn't have used the stock 3rr template. What you are doing is a "slow" edit war which is also forbidden. Please discuss any further changes on the article talk page and come to an understanding and agreement before changing again. Thank you, Matty (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of Offspring band members

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of Offspring band members, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

All the information here can be found on The Offspring's page which isn't too long. There is no need for this page at all.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Hoponpop69 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Offspring genre

Alex, please note that I provided two reliable sources to support the pop punk genre. You altered the genre to something that the sources do not support. I trust that you understand not to delete or alter reliably sourced material. Regards, Nouse4aname (talk) 07:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:Jawbreaker_band.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Jawbreaker_band.jpg. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. Radiant chains (talk) 12:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Alex 101. You have new messages at Timmeh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tim meh !_{(review me)} 03:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Savior

Hi Alex. It probably wasn't a good idea to remove "Savior" from the Rise Against singles, as I've found at least two sources saying its been sent to radio stations to be played, as well as another which speculates on it being the third single. I'll put it back with the sources. If you disagree, don't hesitate to let me know. Tim meh !_{(review me)} 15:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rise Against discography

Re: your edit, I've been discussing - or trying to discuss - the issue with the IPs amking the uncited claims direct on their talk pages. They've not responded there, so I have little hope they'll respond elsewhere.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sublime

Rather than get into an edit war or use up both our time when neither of us is probably going to budge on the issue, I requested a third opinion and hopefully that will settle the issue. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alex, regarding the Sublime article, I just wanted to repeat that it's because the article involves living people (who could sue wikipedia if we screw up; it's happened), that we have to hold it to stricter standards than other articles and follow policy exactly. If the information were posted on the band's official website, or in a review in a music magazine, those would be reliable sources, but blogs and private emails usually aren't. BTW - I'm a fan of the Golden Oldies: Black Flag, Ramones, Social Distortion, Queen, Joan Jett, & Dead Kennedys (I've still got a scar from slammin' at a DK concert, back in the day). Happy editing, Doc Tropics 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Douche" and other friendly terms

Hello, Alex 101. You have new messages at Talk:Sublime (band).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Drmies (talk) 03:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]