User talk:FMSky/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Orphaned non-free image File:Leslie Harvey (guitarist).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Leslie Harvey (guitarist).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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

sign?

I think you forgot to sign here. Joyous! Noise! 21:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

RFCs

I highly recommend that you start similar RFCs for Cate Blanchett, Meryl Streep, and the likes. That could be like a good movement toward a fair approach to all articles. Shahid • ^Talk2me 10:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually a good idea, it should be removed from those articles as well --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant it for real, didn't mean to question your fairness. Still, I don't completely agree with you. Wikipedia should be neutral but factual positive commentary isn't necessarily bad as long as it is a good summary of the article. Who could ever doubt the fact that Streep is regarded as one of the most talented actresses today. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:21, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RSN discussion on The Shortcut source for Sweet Baby Inc.

I've noticed that you didn't comment anything here, if you have some time to look through the discussion - see if you'd like to add something, and please provide your input!

P.S. But please stay calm and civil :)

Have a nice one --Moon darker (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Please watch WP:3RR at the Sweet Baby page

Just a word to the wise--I know all too well how easy it can be to lose track of one's edits within a 24-hour period. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I get it. But I'm making unrelated edits to this page. They are not "warring", these are completely seperate issues in different areas of the article that i'm adressing in hopes of making the article more neutral --FMSky (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand, and that's why I didn't template you or say I was going to report you. I won't. But 3RR is a bright line rule, especially on a page that has been contentious. Even a bunch of unrelated reverts around the page could very easily get an editor in trouble. I don't think I am telling you anything you don't know, but for me, reminders are helpful. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure and trust me I initally didnt want to get this invested into the article. Its just tough when every good-faith change (even minor ones) is immediately reverted, so I'm just trying to find some common ground--FMSky (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Tupac changes

I edited Tupac's lead using sources that contained the opinion of an academic, what's more even an administrator told me that I have good sources. Why consider this a puffery? I have tons of other academic sources that describe Tupac as both a very influential activist and one of the most influential artists of the 20th century. Wikipedia should be a page of information, not a page of personal ideas. Just as it is written to other artists in the lead that they are among the most influential artists of the last century, it must also be written to Tupac. If not, what are academics for? Tupac was a very influential figure culturally and in various fields. Pier1999 (talk) 10:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

Why did you change the genres to not be in alphabetical order and change the last album to be inaccurate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cometh_the_Storm&diff=0&oldid=1219842174 ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

??? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:28, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Dude whatever, just revert it then --FMSky (talk) 11:45, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont think genres need to be alphabetical --FMSky (talk) 11:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

By why change their order at all? How is it better being not in alphabetical order? This is what is confusing to me. And why you made the chronology inaccurate. I just don't understand what motivated that. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:50, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Cause they're imo more stoner metal so i listed that first but if you disagree just revert it

and i put the album there cause this is a studio album chronology, the other was an EP (without an article) FMSky (talk) 11:52, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:ALBUM, these chronologies include all albums, not just studio releases. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Even ones without article? pretty weird, since this is mainly for quick navigation --FMSky (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, otherwise, it would be misleading. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:57, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Reverts

Why do you always revert my edits? Most of the time I don't care, but why would you undo my edits on Christopher Saint Booth and Philip Adrian Booth? I added infoboxes and more detailed information. Furthermore, on the Ulterior Motives article, you also reverted my edits when the article itself is a song and should be written like a song article (with the other info surrounding its status as a lostwave song). Autograph84 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

On Ulterior Motives it was just an unhelpful rewording on your part that even introduced grammatical errors, and you added a second short description when the article already had one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulterior_Motives_%28song%29&diff=1221564712&oldid=1221556784 "The song's was discovered" --FMSky (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted your comment at Talk:Antifa (United States)

You know that wasn't helpful. Telling an editor something you know will be provocative and perhaps confusing is basically a forum style comment. Doug Weller talk 07:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Sheldon Murray

Hello FMSky. I wonder do you think that this user's edits need some discussion somewhere? They seem to be contrary to infobox advice. Or perhaps a Talk page warning might be required? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do the edits here look a little bit similar? Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

User talk:Bert Blackman

Hi FMSky--please explain to the editor why you reverted them. There are no edit summaries and the talk page is a red link, and I think I can guess why you did that but an explanation is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

yes but this is an obvious sock, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheldon_Murray

Not obvious to me. Edit summaries please. Drmies (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sweet Baby

I hadn't noticed the subsequent addition of the CBC source. DotEsports was previously not deemed reliable for that statement. My apologies. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

"Claims"

Please note that in general, articles should not use the words "claim" or "claims". We use said, stated, described, wrote, commented, and according to. See WP:CLAIM. This is in reference to your revert to my edit at Tony Robbins. If you want to change it to "According to <whatever source>, blah blah", that's fine, but there is noting wrong with "reports" (which I used before) or "states that" which I used this time. Neither implies truth. The use of "claims" however implies that we doubt the source, which we don't. Skyerise (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Laken Riley

Hi! I'm having trouble understanding why you made this edit. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths) says that if someone hasn't been convicted of murder, we shouldn't put "murder" in the title. Shouldn't that apply to the rest of the article too? Clearly she was killed, but murder has a legal definition and not all killings count as murder (e.g., manslaughter). The suspect has been charged with murder but not convicted. Gottagotospace (talk) 21:47, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Murder is basically a synonym for killing in common usage --FMSky (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace @FMSky

Perhaps it can be viewed this way. Wikipedia is not a court of law. While we have to assume innocent until guilt is proved, we can also use some measure of common sense. The death was obviously a murder. Whether the suspect did it or not, it was not an accident, nor is there any possible indication of self-defense on the part of the killer (whomever that may be). Now if the suspect does happen to be guilty, and pleads manslaughter in exchange for a lighter sentence, are we going to change the article to "The Manslaughter of Laken Riley," as if she was struck by a drunkenly driven car? I have wondered under what circumstances the "ignore rules" guideline is to be utilized. I think this is one such place. Thank you, TanRabbitry (talk) 22:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Since this may turn into a lengthy discussion, can we move this to the Talk page of the article so other interested editors can chime in? Gottagotospace (talk) 22:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gottagotospace Good grief, I hope it doesn't. I don't have any objection, however. I can copy my previous comment over there. TanRabbitry (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Killing of Laken Riley.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Gottagotospace (talk) 22:15, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Shadow Project: goth metal or not?

Greetings... You did a revision on the genre section of the Shadow Project article, on 22 February 2024, where you removed the gothic metal link and reference. You justified it by stating that "gothic metal didnt even exist in the early 1990s". Well, it did: Paradise Lost's Icon (1993) and Type O Negative's Bloody Kisses (1993) are generally considered the ground zero for the genre. Credible sources such as Decibel's "Hall of Fame" put the genesis of goth metal even earlier: PL's Gothic (1991); coincidentally, the same year that Shadow Project's self-titled debut came out. I won't revert your edit, that's not the point of this message... At least, until I find credible sources. Just sharing this tidbit of information. Thanks for the attention. CalmonTellechea (talk) 13:06, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

No seeing other people's likes

I wasn't sure where to put this and I somehow did not see where similar information was added, but would it be okay to re-add my edit right after what was already there? My reasoning is that just because Musk said to do it doesn't mean that it was done, or at least not done immediately.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

That part is already discussed under "Other changes" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_under_Elon_Musk#Other_changes --FMSky (talk) 06:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

No, it says he wanted it done. Doesn't say it was done.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RSN

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Judith Reisman. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Anti-Western Sentiment political parties

Hello FMSky! There is some Anti-Western Sentiment political parties appears in Europe. The hungarian Our Homeland Movement, the slovakian Republic Movement, the another slovak party People's Party Our Slovakia, and the bulgarian Revival. These political parties are Anti-Western parties, and also Pro-Russian and Pro-Putin parties, that support Vladimir Putin, and they hate Ukraine and Zelenksy. These parties hates the West, because of the LGBTQ propaganda, George Soros, Alex Soros, the Same Sex Marriages, and the Liberal democracy. These parties are Far-Right, and they are hate the Pride, like Budapest Pride, and the other Prides in Europe. This is true FMSky. I know, that you don't care about politics, but i've listened the news. Please leave a message to my talk page later. Have nice day. KovZXad1970 (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editing

With all due respect, it has come to my attention that Wikipedia is based on popular opinion and the admins' point of view, rather than factual and well-cited evidence. The Joy Division edits I made were based on an actual book, not just a self-published source, but were reverted to fit popular consensus and personal views. Things like "fringe theory" don't matter when it comes to providing factual evidence. The reader is more concerned about gaining knowledge than what is most popular. In other words, the article is about its subject, not what a group of admins think. Perhaps Wikipedia wouldn't be criticized as much if the information presented on this site was more genuine. Misterspaceman (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an admin --FMSky (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Well on their talk page Misterspaceman got that message which was about what was a self-published source: it must have been understood because Misterspaceman erased it [1] Woovee (talk) 02:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

BRD at Donald Trump

I agree with your edits, and the more serious issue is that other editor's edit warring, but I figured you should know that you again violated the BRD restriction at Donald Trump. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: which edit violated it? --FMSky (talk) 16:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

This edit, which restored lead content you added in this earlier edit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah i see, but that part was restored by tons of other users as well. I thought this was the consensus version --FMSky (talk) 16:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Confusing edit

How is this an improvement? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Losing_My_Religion&diff=next&oldid=1233388630 These genres are no longer in alphabetical order and you have prioritized one that has no source and should actually be removed. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Notice of talk page discussion regarding your reversion of Marshmellowasediting's edit

You reverted a user's edit to the Jack Posobiec page. I opened upa talk page thread about how we can add the information back in a way that's compliant with Wikipedia:Verifiability. To avoid Wikipedia:Votestacking, I am letting you, the reverting user know as well as Marshmellowasediting. LinuxNCats (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thank you for defending and adhering to the neutral point of view policy. Alexysun (talk) 18:56, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

thanks! --FMSky (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Locoporlavida

Hi FMSky, I've done some research and found out the person behind the accounts Hidolo and Locoporlavida is the same person called LokitaLokita (check it on the Spanish wiki). I'd like to propose a global ban for owning multiple sockpuppets since he's already banned from the Spanish wiki because of the same thing, but I'm not sure how to do that. Odideum (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Im not sure about global bans but i've asked an admin on Hidolo's talk page --FMSky (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi FMSky, just letting you know that I opened an investigation of LokitaLokita (aka Hidolo) for his sockpuppetry. Odideum (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Jesy Nelson

Hi. What exactly did you find wrong with my edit that you decided to revert it? You did not provide reason. ArturSik (talk) 23:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Mainly just style issues ("5" for example should be spelled out as "five", see MOS:SPELL09) and you didn't provide a reason for removing the part "which received negative reviews" and the part about her personal life --FMSky (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

There are exceptions to this rule. See WP:NUMNOTES: “Comparable values nearby one another should be all spelled out or all in figures, even if one of the numbers would normally be written differently”. In this case, since 17 as a word is longer than 5, it seems more reasonable to use ‘17 and 5’ rather than ‘seventeen and five.’ Either way, it should be one or the other, not ‘17 and five.’

As to your other comments. Reception of singles is usually reserved for song pages and it seemed redundant to be included in the lead although I do agree that an exception could be made in this case since the criticism was so widespread it is what she’s currently associated with a lot.

‘Private and personal’ is tautological and the whole statement seemed out of place. Should be revised.

The revert seemed a bit rash. It might’ve been more sensible to just revert these two statements rather than the whole edit. ArturSik (talk) 07:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Revertion of country metal

Hi! What exactly are your rationals for reverting the country metal section on country rock. You said in the edit summary that it was a non-existent genre, however, Billboard uses the term, see here: https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-metal-music-hardy-brantley-gilbert-hard-rock/

And if you search Google, you will find topics related to the music genre, although, it is mostly Reddit, last.fm, and other user-generated sites, meaning the genre certainly exists, else people wouldn't be talking about it, lol. There is also Rebel meets Rebel by David Allen Coe featuring the majority of Pantera (everyone sans Phil Anslemo are present on the album), Hank Williams III, Matanza (whose article describes them as falling into countrycore, country mixed with metal and hardcore punk). I believe country metal is closely tied to southern metal and sludge metal, with one subgenre, countrycore. Moline1 (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Billboard uses the term, see here: https://www.billboard.com/pro/country-metal-music-hardy-brantley-gilbert-hard-rock/ no, actually only the headline uses it which cant be used per WP:HEADLINE (and its literally in quotation marks). Even if it was reliable, that one source isnt nearly enough to establish an entire genre. I doubt you will find any other reliable source using this term unironically. that david allen coe album is just standard ass southern metal btw --FMSky (talk) 16:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I did a Ctrl+F on that Billboard article, and found a mention of country metal within the article, however, it does word it in a way that country metal does not currently exist. Here's the quote: Hayes says. “So I think, as this progresses, we’re going to see an entire subgenre come out of this, like country metal. I think it’s going to get heavier, and it’s going to get more crazy.”

So, with the way it is worded, it cannot be used. We'll need to wait for more artists to bring attention to this, which would then result in several sources beyond Billboard mentioning this. I'll drop the country metal thing for now, but, I'll keep checking Google from time to time to see if anything new and reliable comes in. As for southern metal, there also isn't any good results, plus, a user on here said southern metal is sometimes used synonymously with sludge metal (see the Southern metal edit history). Since there is disagreement on where that page should go, I turned it into a disambiguation that lists both sludge metal and southern rock. Moline1 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

IShowSpeed

Was wondering what you meant by “Unsourced / sourced to random youtube vid” in your rollback. First, the reference was a Twitter post, and 2nd all I did was provide a word for word transcription of what he stated in his stream. Alexysun (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

the sources weren't WP:RELIABLE. twitter and youtube can be used as sources on occasion but only if its uncontroversial statements about the person themselves and when it doesnt involve third parties, see WP:ABOUTSELF --FMSky (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

While I agree that the commentary on the tweet cannot be used, it is certainly permissible to extract a direct quote from the subject's own stream. Additionally, I would like to emphasize that the quote is already present in the article. I did not introduce the quote; rather, I have refined it to enhance its accuracy. Alexysun (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)