Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Goth subculture. Please note that I have reverted your changes as some of them appeared to be deleting content, which requires explanation. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gothic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Amadou & Mariam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Something Else (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Master of My Make-Believe (album), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages John Hill and Diplo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the vandal is you because you came on Not Your Kind of People page and added that terrible Clash Music review. I mean not just the rating but the content itself. Also it's very, very short. I can't call this a honest review, but a hateful and biased review.

Also you removed a 5 star review just to add that crappy review. That Clash Music review can be found through Metacritic link anyway.

I have a feeling that you wrote that review... Otherwise why you're so insistent? Deepblue1 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said before, you're the vandal because YOU try to insert your own terrible review.Deepblue1 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You started to get on my nerves. I will NOT tolerate your attempts to insert your shitty review. Move the issue on Talk Page of Not Your Kind of People and let's vote! Deepblue1 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Not_Your_Kind_of_People. You accuse me without evidences. Stop saying lies about me.Deepblue1 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Coexist (album), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't reintroduce your change to the article without explaining them elsewhere first. It saves a lot of reverting of mass changes. As Template:Album ratings shows, web publications are not italicized. Metacritic's score is already discussed at length in the leading prose of the section, so the template would be redundant. Your removal of the table because it's too much to you is not a reason to remove it. Like in GA articles such as Here I Stand (Usher album) and 8701, it's useful in presenting information too complex to be expressed in prose (WP:TABLE) Other table form information includes accolades for an album such as in Kid A. I'm trying to improve this article, so your preferential edits are getting a bit in the way. Dan56 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the point of the ratings template, you did notice how I did not mention the rating given by the reviewers in prose? It will already be noted in the ratings template, so I avoided being redundant. The Metacritic field in the template is an optional parameter (Template:Album ratings) Dan56 (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even bother looking at what I did in my previous edit? I didn't add or remove any reviews. I removed "However, This is PiL has also been met with mixed reviews" and "The album has also received negative reviews". It's completely unnecessary to say that. Look at any other wikipedia article about an album that has a metacritic score in the 60s and you'll see that they never mention that the album has also received negative and mixed reviews. They let the reviews speak for themselves. Also, stop with the "you're a Punk sockpuppet" bullshit. I'm not a sockpuppet and your baseless accusations are completely irrelevant to my edits of This is PiL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonran (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Valboo wrote it, then I copy-edited the text you're referring to at The Weeknd (with an edit summary). Then you reverted me, saying "This was a good job" and Consensus is "not for the only opponent in 9 months" (whatever the hell that means). Check my edit summary (also available at the article's history) and I explained why it wasnt in fact a "good job" entirely, so I copy-edited it. Stop reverting me please. I explained myself at the talk page, addressed any and every point you made, and if we both want to avoid WP:3RR we should talk it out. Dan56 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have a specific issue about my improvement that's violating any guideline, then dont imply some page ownership that I cant make constructive edits to this article, which I've mightily improved since when I first edited it. Dan56 (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from deleting content you do not agree with, as you did here to The Weeknd. Disruptive genre-related edits made to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 01:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birthday Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you mean well, I've again reverted your edits to Billboard Hot 100 and Alternative Songs. These additions are not worded very well and do not really improve the articles... in fact they are quite muddled and confusing. There's no need to focus on 1990's policies for the charts, nor add clipped screenshots from Google books, and the part about "three types of Hot 100" is inaccurate/doesn't make sense. The component charts are already mentioned in the main Hot 100 article, and they also have their own spin-off pages. If you're going to add large sections to these or change around the intro sections, please discuss on the Talk Page(s) first. Thanks! - eo (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While you're at it, you might want to check that article for close-paraphrases. See my sandbox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You helped this article to get GA last year where as there is a important problem of WP:NPOV concerning facts that are easy to check via the site Billboard.com. I explained the problem and proposed a solution on the talk of the article. This needs to be fixed quickly. Woovee (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked, and it appears you wish to make an edit. Just go and do it. If there's a problem with it, someone will make an adjustment, or enter a discussion with you. Be bold! Please be bold - that's how we make progress. If we entered into a discussion and got agreement for every minor edit, then Wikipedia wouldn't be the success it is. It was because of the slowness of getting agreement for content on Nupedia that Wikipedia was created. "Wiki" means quick - its essence is that multiple users can directly edit text collaboratively and directly, rather than having long discussions to get agreement first. Do it the wiki way - WP:Be bold! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did several edits the last two weeks; the problem is they were quickly reverted and rejected by the same person who has been presenting the "song 2" single as "a hit" in the USA, where as 1) it was just a "a radio hit on alternative modern rock radios" !! and 2) not a hit at all in terms of commercial success as "Song2" never cracked the Hot 100 that is the only Billboard chart that includes "units sold" and "singles sales". " Billboard modern rock tracks" indeed is a list that mentions only the 40 most-played songs on alternative rock radios which is a very special sub-format. More important, this billboard isn't based from "units sold and single sales" at all. Clearly, this article should have never been rated GA because it mis-interpreted sources, and presents facts in a fallacious way. It's clearly original research that presenting "Song2" as "a hit". As an adminisrator who passed this GA and who didn't see this problem because you assumed, sources had been used following the wiki guidelines of neutrality, sticktosource and nooriginalresearch, you were abused in a certain way too. As a reader who knew Blur's history, and their cult status in the USA, they just had a album certified gold in 1997, I was baffled by the presentation of "song2" as a hit. It is also perverse because european people don't know exactly what is the Billboard alternative songs, and what is the Hot 100 (which is the equivalent of the uk singles chart if you prefer). Thank you for replying so quickly. - Woovee (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to help you by stating the situation in one or two sentences. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it is said that "song 2" brought the band mainstream success in the states. This is not true: it was only the album that was certified gold in the USA, not that "song 2" single. Indeed, this single never entered the Hot 100 (the chart that include the sales): so how could it be presented as a hit. What is true is that the "song2" single was played a lot on alternative modern rock radios, it peaked at n°6 in the modern rock radios. so it was only a radio alternative rock radio. The use of the word "hit" is to me not appropriate. I would say that it had heavy rotation on alternative radios. Woovee (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history and now see the situation. I agree with you. I was about to make the change, but note that it has already been done. There are now three editors who agree that "hit" means a record in the Billboard 100. Any further problems, please give me a ping. It helps if you explain quickly and clearly what the situation is. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug, has reverted most of Woovee's improvements with the assumption that what was there was accurate to the high-quality reliable sources, but much of it isn't. It can be difficult to improve an article when it has several watchers making sure that dubious content does not change. The problem is, Indopug didn't bother to actually check the sources before reverting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that at last, some people agree with the fact that there's a problem of neutrality on this article, huge to my point of view. Woovee (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your efforts to bring neutrality and accuracy to Wikipedia articles. It can be difficult to break-through on some of our pages, especially when several "veteran" editors are protecting dubious content, but hang-in there; we need more editors like you! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Song 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/artist/292472/blur/chart?f=377 Billboard Alternative Songs] Billboard.com. Retrieved 9-1-2014}}</ref>
• name="allmusic">{{Allmusic|class=song|id=t1279006}} Song 2 | AllMusic<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> It has been licensed worldwide on numerous occasions. Its first appearance came as the title

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)

sitesearch/#/dan%2520morrell/ "Dan Morrell on NYTimes Search"]. NYTimes.com. retrieved 20-1-14}}</ref> who only wrote four articles to the paper according to ''The New York Times''{{'}}s archives, *1996: ''Il Terzo Secolo (The Third Century))''. Feltrinelli, Italy. Essays on the USA{{fact|date=January 2014}} before Rock Music'', "Omniware" [Scaruffi is the president of Omniware],ref name="president" /> ISBN 978-0-9765531-2-0 Rock and Dance Music'', "Omniware" [Scaruffi is the president of Omniware],ref name="president" /> ISBN 978-0-9765531-5-1 (Vol 1: 1950-1989) & ISBN 978-0-9765531-6-8 (Vol 2: 1990-2008)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *1996: ''Il Terzo Secolo (The Third Century))''. Feltrinelli, Italy. Essays on the USA{{fact|date=January 2014}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have merged the two suggested wordings. Please review to see if it is acceptable: Talk:Blur_(band)#Dispute over "hit". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blues rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Fraser may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• walesartsreview.org/elizabeth-fraser/ 'Elizabeth Fraser Live'] by Adrian Master, Welsh Art Review]</ref><ref>[http://www.lucypotterton.com/#!about/c786 Lucy Potterton homepage - About Lucy
• review-8014875.html "Meltdown: Elizabeth Fraser, Royal Festival Hall - review"]. ''Evening Standard]]''. 7 August 2012. Retrieved 10-12-12</ref> <ref name="Mugan"/><ref name="Financial Times">Hunter-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to edit all those scaruffi reviews on the Fahey album pages. Airproofing (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that the URL you are using works anymore, as the thread has been archived. I think this should work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews — goethean 17:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee, You stated that the Goth Bible is not (WP:NOTABILITY) notable enough. If you go to this Policy, you will see that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article." WP:NNC says that "The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e., whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies." I would appreciate it if you would not delete content sourced to a published book on the topic.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 20:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee, Could you send me the link to the Wikipedia policy against copying sentences from other WP articles? As I understand it, the requirement is that you acknowledge the source in your edit summary, which I did.

Here is the editing guideline from WP:CWW: "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." I read CWW, and didn't find any discussion of copying being discouraged. If I missed the section, please point it out to me, thanks.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Murphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, in Rip it Up and Start Agan, Simon Reynolds only refers to TBP as "proto-goth" (along with Bauhaus and The Banshees), as in it influenced the scene that followed. At what point does he describe TBP's "highly gothic, challenging lyrics" (which you highlight before anything else, giving the reader the impression that the band's fame rests on its literary qualities and not its sound, image, live shows...), or its "violent live sound influenced by punk rock and blues" (what does "live sound" even mean here? And is it not redundant to say that a post-punk band is influenced by punk rock?) The "Prince of Darkness" name occurs again and again in reviews and interviews, and packs a lot more punch than "the grand lord of gothic lushness". There is no doubt that elements of Cave's music have been described as gothic, and that he has influenced bands associated with the goth rock genre, but I think it's misleading to lump him into some kind of scene, which is what you appear to be doing. I suggest you read Kicking Against the Pricks if you haven't already. It's clear that Cave and the other BP members detested the goth scene and wrote "Release the Bats" as a parody of its followers. I hope we can reach some kind of consensus here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBP is first and foremost a post-punk band; proto-goth doesn't adequately sum up the band's output/legacy. How about this: "Prior to this, he fronted The Birthday Party, one of the most notorious and influential post-punk bands of the 1980s. ... Referred to as rock music's "Prince of Darkness", Cave's output is generally characterised by emotional intensity, a wide variety of influences, and lyrical obsessions with death, religion, love and violence.[3] NME described him as "the grand lord of gothic lushness"." - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBP was influential on the gothic rock genre - and many other (sub)genres. It's arguable that they influenced noise rock as much as gothic rock, maybe more so. There's a whole movement of American noise rock bands who aped TBP. Instead of singling out any area of influence, it's better to just say they were one of the most influential post-punk bands. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to include the gothic adjective in the description of TBP" This is the lead for the Nick Cave article, not TBP. If you're going to emphasise the gothic connection then it opens the door to a variety of other labels bestowed upon them by critics over the years, from blues punk to aforementioned noise rock. Those two would be more legitimate given they have Wikipedia articles. Keep it simple and stick to the all-encompassing post-punk. I have agreed to the NME quote. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. Glad we had this discussion. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

De728631 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adam Sweeting

added a link pointing to Richard Cook

Synchronicity I

added a link pointing to Richard Cook

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilkTork,

As you are an administrator and you deal with articles about music, I wanted to ask you how a song has to be credited if the artist is known under a pseudonym. Let's take as instances songs by Dylan or Prince or Bowie: do they have to be credited as "Bob Dylan", "Prince", "David Bowie" or as "BoB Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman", "Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson" , "David Bowie|David Robert Jones". Thanks. Woovee (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist is widely known under a pseudonym, their birth name would be mentioned in the main article on that person as that is part of the scope of that article, and is encyclopedic. In articles on that artists' work, we would tend to only use the pseudonym by which they are known, as their birth name would be out of scope for that article as the article would only be on the song itself, not on the history of the artist. If an artist uses an irregular pseudonym for a particular song or album, then we would give both the irregular pseudonym and the name by which they are better known, which may in itself be a pseudonym. See Don't Go Breaking My Heart. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santigold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.C.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Woovie, I enjoyed getting a chance get to meet you the other day--thanks for being so understanding. I can see that you are interested in music, so I am looking forward to working with you on many projects in the future. Garagepunk66 (talk) 09:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Citation Barnstar
	This is in recognition of all of your fine efforts over the years. In this instance, I wish to mention your dedication to accuracy and reliability in our sources--and that is just what we need to be considered a credible encyclopedia. . Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Here is another, in light of your many accomplishments over the years. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Garagepunk66, thank you very much. I used to be more prolific. I still keep on adding content on articles when I have time. Woovee (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just some tokens of my appreciation. Garagepunk66 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Cure (The Cure album) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posing the question. I fixed it so it is now a Request for Comments. I added your signature to the question as that is what is required. Karst (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @Karst: I thought to ask it at wikiproject alternative, as it doesn't only concern this article. I found a lot of sources for this legacy section a couple of years ago. Woovee (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Please proceed. Karst (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Black Celebration

added a link pointing to Steve Sutherland

Depeche Mode

added a link pointing to Spin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ANI here about my edits on Siouxsie related articles that may interest you. thanks for reading. Carliertwo (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting mixed messages. For the longest time, I thought we were supposed to do like you said and only included studio albums in the infoboxes for studio album articles and tried implementing that policy on the My Chemical Romance articles but someone changed it back. See here, here, here, and here. There's more than those four but I just wanted to show you why I applied that to the Depeche Mode chain, even though as I said it was my understanding we were only supposed to do studio albums like you said. Shaneymike (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use other articles as instances to follow. Had Black Celebration been released under another title and with another tracklisting in the US for instance, it would have been relevant to mention it. But including live albums, compilations, remixes cds is a no-no. Woovee (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Depeche Mode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabaret Voltaire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wish (The Cure album) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Robvanvee 15:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robvanvee: Using a tool is such a plague on wikipedia because it makes longtime users waste a lot of time. Had you read the edits, you would have realized that these genres have been established by music historians for these albums for a long long time. Another point, one doesn't put any source in the infobox because the information doesn't simply belong there Woovee (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya Woovee, I was a little puzzled by this edit and the concerns you expressed in the edit summary.

Diffuser.fm is part of Townsquare Media's Loudwire Network. The site has mentions in sources like the BBC, Rolling Stone, American Songwriter, etc. and currently has 170 cites in Wikipedia.

The review was clearly identified as an album review in the headline. It described songs that have not appeared as singles (in the penultimate paragraph). The date didn't faze me; several of the reviews mentioned on Metacritic are dated mid-August as well (Record Collector was first, 18 August). Journos clearly got advance copies.

As for diffuser.fm not being mentioned on Metacritic, I don't know what criteria Metacritic uses. But the Times review for example isn't mentioned there either, nor the one in the Financial Times and several other papers. Best, --Andreas JN466 15:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, you point out a few contradictions. I don't know why The Times and the Financial Times are not referenced on Metacritic. Maybe it is because the UK Times' group doesn't allow it. Anyway, Diffuser.fm is not well famous to my opinion: I don't rate it as a good source like the ones I've added. In fact, I don't remember seeing it ever including in the rating infobox/reception section of a music GA/FA. Diffuser.fm's looks like a summary of other reviews, it is my view. There are plenty of other reviews available for this album, I've just added another one. Woovee (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources you added are more important, and it's not like we're short of reviews. Still, I thought I'd mention it. The DYK reviewer (I'm happy to share DYK credit as you added some key sources) is asking for a citation for the track listing; any suggestions? --Andreas JN466 11:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I've never seen a citation for a tracklisting, in an article about an album. One can add the BMG catalogue numbers for the standard edition and the Japanese edition, eventually. Woovee (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Post-punk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Robb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the message. i didn't mean to edit war or anything. thanks for the message though. I'll do my best to never do what i did again. Statik N (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Forever Now (The Psychedelic Furs album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Call Me by Your Name (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T. Rex (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tricky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince of Darkness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nico, 1988, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This is to notify you that there is a Request for Comment discussion on the talkpage for the article T.Rex (band) in which you and your recent edits to the article (specifically those in which the above-named section was deleted) are cited. As you were tagged in the discussion, you should have received a notification about this, however I notice that you have made further edits to the article while not participating in the discussion. In case your notification has failed to arrive, here is a link:
Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations secion.
I should advise you to participate in the RfC debate if you want your views on the subject to count towards the consensus on the subject on Wikipedia. 62.190.148.115 (talk) 16:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As the RfC seems to have gone quiet and since you seem to be expanding the scope of this (viz deleting the details of band members' deaths) I have sought an alternative route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:T._Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section

62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Gothic rock" is listed in the infobox under "genre". What's your take on this? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. SilkTork (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you so much for this kind message :) Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear too. Woovee (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as we both appear unflinching on your views about the discussion at Talk:Goth subculture, I think it would be a good idea to seek a third opinion. I'm supposed to notify you before I request one to make sure you're alright with it, so I hope you're in support as I believe it would help to reach a consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Issan Sumisu, I have contacted a longtime wikipedia member to help finding a compromise. Woovee (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issan Sumisu As SilkTork only gave their opinion about the RSs, I agree to demand a third opinion to discuss some details as there are quite a few. Creating a section about the the nightclubs, the keyspaces that were important in the emergence of the goth subculture in the 1980s, would be the right thing to do in order to reach a compromise quickly. Woovee (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feel free to go ahead. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited To Love Is to Live, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Idles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Shoegazing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Sutherland.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Music U.K. (magazine), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:16, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Musicuk1984.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) 17:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slowdive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Gracias, cada día aprendo más. No volveré a usar a Scaruffi en mis ediciones. En realidad, soy latino y uso traductor para añadir información, espero poder seguirles apoyando en estos temas de los cuales conozco aunque no maneje perfectamente su idioma. Bendiciones. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sparks (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sky's Gone Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Murphy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome re the thank - incidentally I have noticed a similar claim re. the end of Bowie's Glam run - the Rebel Rebel page claimed that it was Bowie's last glam anthem, even though the next Bowie single, the Diamond Dogs title track, is also very much a Glam anthem. I tagged the claim for CN.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Music U.K. (magazine), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Music U.K.".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marc Bolan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hot Love.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zinc Alloy and the Hidden Riders of Tomorrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Groove.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Pursuit of Love (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Order and Marino Marini.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That the file has been on Commons for months does not mean it's acceptable to use here. Commons is not en.wikipedia. We are not responsible for their copyright errors, nor do we have to incorporate them here. Further, Commons is badly backlogged on all sorts of administrator requests. It is nearly a failed project at this point. We can not accept copyrighted, non-free materials on this project unless used under the non-free content policy, which this would not qualify for since we have a perfectly good image of him in concert in 1973 at File:Marc Bolan In Concert 1973.jpg. There is no reason to include the image you want to include. I am re-removing it. Please stop adding it. If you have questions, certainly ask me. I'll be happy to help. Attempting to edit war a copyright violating image onto the article is not the way forward. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extremities, Dirt and Various Repressed Emotions, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages EG and Paul Raven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sparks (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiny Tim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Woovee. You've said that Robert Smith has changed his mind often on his favourite Cure album. You're probably more well-read on the Cure than me so could you please, if possible, find an instance that's later to my source in which he explicitly identifies something other than Bloodflowers as his favourite Cure record (I've been unable to with a cursory google search)? While it's not unnusual for musical artists to cite their latest album at the time as being their favourite, the source I used was last updated in 2008 after 4:13 Dream had been released, and he does not acknowledge either that nor 2004's self-titled as being his favourite, and instead explicitly cites Bloodflowers. If he had cited the 2008 album as his favourite, it would be reasonable for us to assume that in, the absence of any other later quotation, that his favourite would change with each new subsequent album, but since he didn't cite his newest at that time as his favourite, unless we can find him changing his mind in a later interview, I think it is reasonable to the Bloodflowers quote there. Cheers. LaunchOctopus (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw we got in a bit of a disagreement on Goth Subculture, and I want to clarify why I support this minor change. The change we were discussing makes the sentence mean completely different things: "The F Club night in Leeds... became instrumental to the development of the goth subculture in North England in the 1980s" means it was only instrumental to goth in the north, not anywhere else; "The F Club night in Leeds in northern England... became instrumental to the development of the goth subculture in the 1980s" is saying where Leeds is, like you said that sentence was supposed to mean. If it is, as you said, supposed to clarify where Leeds is, it should be the second option, because the first option doesn't say what you said it was supposed to mean. Also, none of the sources cited mention it being influential to goth specifically in the north, they all talk about it influencing the subculture as a whole. So, your change makes it inaccurate and so doesn't fit WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES.

I also honestly have no idea why you cited WP:POINTY, because I'm not arguing against any policy? I'm trying to make fit better with what the sources say, which would put it better in line with policies. Thanks, no bad blood. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Goth subculture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Spirituals (Santigold album)

added links pointing to The Skinny and The Telegraph

Santigold

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santigold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dub.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A thread has been set up about this on the Dispute Resolution page. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee. (Cc From T.Rex article talk page)

In your absence the DRN thread has concluded with consensus between Netherzone and myself under moderator guidance to include a short paragraph about the "reunion" bands. As per the duscussion, should you disagree with our connsensus about - or should you choose to unilaterately revert or significantly modify - the text as we have agreed it, we will proceed to a Request For Comment discussion board topic about this article.

The thread is currently located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#T.Rex_(band) . I will post a reply with an updated URL once the discussion is archived.

EDIT: Here is the updated URL for the archived thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_227#T.Rex_(band). Romomusicfan (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the thread, with only formatting modifications with regard to subheader heirarchy:

Romomusicfan (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Goth subculture, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee, I'm just informing you that I reverted this edit of your's from last week because it interferes with MOS:CHRONOLOGICAL and instated incorrect grammar through capitalising non-proper nouns. Your summary argued for the edit claiming WP:OR, by saying artist before 1977 weren't post-punk, however the article already states that, it was not instated in the edit you reverted. Seeing as your problem is with the inclusion of artists like Suicide and Television being called post-punk, then your issue is with the contents of that section and you should delete those or move them to a "precursors" section, not make the article non-chronological. I hope this finds you well and you have a good day. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Mehdi Hasan, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:JeremyjayAbandonedApartments.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 17:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can we discuss about what you want removed due to poor sourcing and what you want added? This back and forth of you deleting massive chunks of the page and me having to re-add them with sources that don't take long to find is painstaking. It would be more useful if we could highlight the weak parts of the article on the talk page and resolve what is to be brought in and what is to be removed. I didn't revert everything you removed, and I know that article is overlong and in need of trimming in many parts, but I was aiming to make it a more informative article so bare with me about off-sourcing here and there, my intent is not original research its to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, everything is in good-faith. So yeah, if you want things removed I'm not really gonna fight on you with that just want to show you sources that could be deemed reliable to keep them on the page. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's reliable sources policy for Mark Fisher his page literally says he was a "music critic" your edits are WP:JUST. You can't just remove something because you say he wasn't a "music journalist". He was a music and cultural critic. He has written many books on music. You are ignoring all discussion and just engaging in a genre-war which is breaching WP:CONSENSUS. Follow WP:TALK or I might have to bring it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Aradicus77 (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee,

I see you are editing so please come to ANI and respond to this discussion. It would be good to hear from you before any action is taken. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee,

This situation discussed at ANI hasn't been resolved yet. Could you continue to participate in this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blur (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Girls & Boys.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest.

This edit [4] is unacceptable.

@Issan Sumisu: you should have never advanced inaccurate claim of OWN and @3family6: you shouldn't have reproduced the same inaccurate things at talk pages.

Result. Here we are with an user who has been making many short cuts and wp:OR and wp:UNDUE at gothic rock from July and now this hunt. Both of you gave them full power and these days no revert / improvement is accepted either.

And this today towards a newcomer who did just an edit [5] at gothic rock. It is a pity. Woovee (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Post-punk. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:15, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Woovee, if I see more edit warring between you and Aradicus77 in other articles, I'll propose an interaction ban at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this [6] Aradicus77 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:29, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This led to a sitewide block without automatic expiry; see your block log and the ANEW thread for details. Advice for appealing blocks can be found at WP:GAB. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @SilkTork.

You helped me in the past to improve the Blur (band) article with another user.

I am contacting you for this present issue.

I have read the Iban page and I accept having no direct contact anymore at all with user Aradicus77 which means no revert when this person edits, nowhere on Wikipedia, no direct question and answer at talk pages, never an edit summary with a direct communication either, no notification made with a thank or whatsoever.

I would also like to not get any interaction with user 3family6 who sent me a row of thanks but somehow their way of interacting didn't work and lead us to this situation.

As I have been a more than 15 year contributor, I would ideally like to not cross their paths on the post-punk, gothic rock, goth subculture articles but I am aware that this demand is not included in Iban.

Regards Woovee (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding 3family6, I think asking them to avoid contact where possible and using Special:Mute/3family6 should do the job. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree I rarely edit those pages anyway, I think I've been more active on them the past couple weeks than ever before trying to mediate this dispute. So hopefully it won't be an issue.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:03, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee. When I first looked at your block log, I was somewhat concerned that you were a serial edit-warrior; however, looking at it closely, I note that it is just two incidents, separated by four years. But that still indicates a person who can lose control, and disrupt the encylopedia for their own ends. I'm not able to look into this closely today, but I will tomorrow. And I'll make a decision then as to the best way forward. In the meantime, would you explain what happened in those two incidents - Bauhaus in 2021, and Post punk last month. Ah, I see a couple of other incidents - T. Rex two years ago, and Neo-psychedelia in 2016. OK. The incidents appear to follow the same pattern. You have a disagreement over something in an article, so you make a bold edit. That is fine. But when that edit is reverted you respond by edit warring. You are likely aware of the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle essay. Most people are. Unfortunately many people have not read it closely. Please do so now. Then tell me your understanding of that essay, and what you will do in future to prevent incidents getting out of control. I will read your answer tomorrow. And I will make a decision as to what to do depending on your answer. Please be as succinct as possible in your answer. That will help me and it will help you clarify your own thinking. I suggest you draft your answer and edit it carefully. One of your main problems is that you press "Publish changes" too quickly. Better to read through what you have written carefully, and edit it a few times before pressing the Publish button. Anyway. I will speak with you again tomorrow. SilkTork (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the BRD guideline in full. It is said that waiting 24 hours after making a bold edit is useful. Then it is explained in detail what to do if it is met with a first revert. Writing an explanation (^a succinct one as you said) on the talk page is the following step. In the BRD cycle, a second revert (when it is an improvement taking in notes the remark of the other editor), is acceptable. However a consensus on the talk page is expected before a third edit on the same material and section of the article.

So in that case I will try to reach a compromise with extending a discussion with other users to improve an article when it is necessary. Woovee (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good. And what will you do if your edit is reverted, you make a succinct explanation on the talk page, and several days later there is no response, even though the reverting editor is active on Wikipedia? SilkTork (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will post a message on the talk page of a wiki project, or ask for a third opinion, or suggest a rfc or find a mediator, or reach other users through the DNR, depending on the issue. Woovee (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I will unblock you on condition you don't break the three revert rule. If you break the three revert rule you will be blocked again, and it is highly unlikely you will be unblocked again. Admins tend not to very forgiving of users who break unblock conditions. It is not a condition, but I strongly suggest that you limit yourself to one revert per page per 24 hours, regardless of the situation. If you follow BRD as we talked about above, then you shouldn't get into problems, and you shouldn't get into personal conflict with other volunteers on the project. If you always discuss and remain polite and respectful in tense situations you will be helping build the project, and you will be making friends and colleagues instead of enemies or people you want to avoid. Now, there's no point in unblocking you if you are going to get into an edit war again - that's just wasting everyone's time. So, before unblocking you I want you to confirm that you understand the conditions. Don't break 3RR, and avoid edit wars by editing collaboratively, following BRD. SilkTork (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I won't do more than one revert a day on an article, and I will respect the three-revert rule, following the BRD cycle or using the DRN.

I would also like to maintain the iban with user Aradicus77. Woovee (talk) 04:22, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe ToBeFree is working on setting up an interaction ban. If you'd like a formal interaction ban to be part of your unblock conditions then you'll need to wait until that is set up by ToBeFree and either agreed by the community, or set up as a voluntary restriction. SilkTork (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In hindsight I don't want a formal interaction ban to be part of my unblock conditions. Thanks for the advices. Woovee (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I can only agree to an unblock where that interaction ban is part of the unblock conditions. If it is, all is fine and unblocking can be done without even asking me, as noted in the block log. If there is no agreement to an interaction ban, we'd need to take the discussion to WP:AN to find a consensus. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:25, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just unblocked Aradicus77 under the condition of an interaction ban towards you, so perhaps you can reconsider and we can make it a two-way interaction ban. Keeping it one-sided and allowing you to interact, forcing them to run away, would seem pretty unfair to me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(You could appeal the ban at WP:AN at any time.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:41, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finally it has been confirmed that I can be unblocked on the condition of a two-way interaction ban which I agree. Woovee (talk) 16:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Woovee, I should have made that more clear and not just in the block log entry. The advice above is of course true, and it's neither a surprise nor a special agreement that violating the three-revert rule leads to blocks. Edit warring in general, independently of the number of reverts. is a problem and can lead to blocks, of course. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to Wikipedia and feel free to remove or archive this all. It's not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree

I have just received once again many notifications.

I checked the discussion where my name appears and I see that the word "bias" had been used during the block.

Since the iban is effective, it is getting worse. My name has been mentioned next to the terms wrong edits and hoax.

Enough. I am asking sanctions as it is a violation of the iban.

I should have never been tagged again after the last message above. Woovee (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide diff links of what exactly you are talking about. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1 November during the block [7]: a low attack was written: "Woovee off pushing bias on those pages"

4 November a few hours after the IBAN was on, a new discussion started about me: my name is cited many times [8]. I am targetted in this 1st message.

The third message, a few minutes after, was still about me. [9] "wrong edits that last" [...] "many old "hoax" pages".

No edit was allowed to mention anything with my name nowhere on wiki once the IBAN proclaim and no edit about me with pejorative terms on wiki was allowed once this same proclaim.

I therefore demand sanctions. Woovee (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of this was during negotiations about the now-two-way interaction ban. The user needed explanations and received them, felt a need to state their view on the matter one last time and was able to do so without immediately getting punished. When they accidentally edited your talk page in response to a ping, they undid their own contribution. As long as that's all and there's no further interaction, it should be fine. You have an extremely short fuse and should work on that instead of requesting sanctions. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:56, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged by you and de facto you made me force to read vile attacks. You shouldn't have sent that notification. And you don't say you are sorry to apologize.

Even in normal times, when someone accuses another one of "bias", it is wp:uncivil and wp:bad faith and that alone is enough to go to ANI.

And you gave "some of your sympathies" after reading that under the reply where the word Bias was next to my name, this is problematic..

And then it carried on after the IBAN with the pop up of this "wrong edits" and that "hoax" in an appendice of a discussion centered around me.

I don't adhere to this.

I demand another view with an administrator

Hi @SilkTork again.

An user even in normal times can't be denigrated like that on personal talk pages. Am I correct saying this.

Regards Woovee (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ping users when talking about them. Special:Mute/ToBeFree and Special:Mute/Aradicus77 exist. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about you.

It is about the things that I have discovered written about me that fall under wp:uncivil and wp:bad faith and should be reviewed at ANI. Woovee (talk) 01:26, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've pinged me. Not sure what you're expecting, but you are close to being blocked. I've looked at your unblock conditions, and I've looked at what you've been saying above. I like you, so I'm giving you a chance. Read carefully the terms of the interaction ban that is linked in your unblock conditions: Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Interaction_ban. Read the fourth bullet point. Then look above at what you have been typing. You agreed to the interaction ban. You have to live by it. If I see that you have broken the terms of the ban again, then I will block you. That's what admins do. And we do it because the community have entrusted us to stop disruption on the project. You raise this issue as a complaint to anyone on Wikipedia again, then you are being disruptive, and if I become aware of it, I will block you. You asked for the interaction ban. Now you have to live with it. To be fair, if I become aware of Aradicus77 breaking the terms of their unblock, I will also give them the one warning (to be fair and equal), and if I become aware of them doing it again I will block them. Interaction bans when two users are editing the same articles is very difficult. You are both allowed to edit the same pages, but you may find that difficult and frustrating if you don't agree with what the other person is doing. Up to you how you are going to handle it, but handle it yourself you must. To be absolutely clear, Woovee, if you reply to my comment with anything other than acceptance, if you make any kind of complaint about the interaction ban, and/or the problems it is going to cause you, or that it is unfair, then I will block you because by criticising the ban you are indirectly making a negative reference to the other user. You can ask reasonable questions about the ban, though all the info you need is contained in WP:IBAN. Read that carefully and apply common sense. This ban is what you agreed to as a condition of being unblocked. If you break that condition then you will go back to being blocked, and admins rarely unblock users who break their conditions, especially so soon. If you're angry and frustrated about this, then I suggest you give it 24 hours before responding. And when you do, read through when you've written before posting it. I find that when I'm angry at something (or someone) on Wikipedia, that it helps to type out my angry response, but not post it. I then spend my time slowly editing it down until it becomes calm and reasonable, then I post it. It may surprise you to learn that most users get angered and frustrated at some point when editing Wikipedia. But what most users do is wait until they've calmed down before posting. It really does help. It helps you, its helps the other users, it helps the project, and it helps the readers. I'll add that while you are allowed to appeal the ban, if you try to appeal too soon, it may be regarded as disruptive. Six months is generally regarded as the minimum time to wait before making an appeal. And if you do, you will need to show excellent behaviour in the six months before the appeal. SilkTork (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Woovee. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 16 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 15:46, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Goodreg3 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you dislike Goodreg and I'm sure you're tired of seeing me, he's right about this diff. Look at Singles. I figure you are probably very annoyed with how much attention and criticism your edits have been receiving recently, but just take a look for a second. There are multiple cell placement errors in this table. Please, do not act in the heat of conflict. mftp dan ^oops 21:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee (talk) 23:35, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd lift the indef and leave the block at something like a week or so here. The underlying reason for all the edits at Template:Cocteau Twins seems to have been the result of issues around weather promotional single releases should'nt count as equivalent to commercial releases in infoboxes. Woovee is right that they shouldn't, and the issue has now been resolved[10]. However, they did go on a one-person rampage across multiple articles and talk pages, disparaging any source that hinted otherwise. Which is not cool, and for me was very annoying, and cannot be repeated in the future. Then there is the matter at hand re the visibility of his edits on the list, which frankly seems like a simple mistake - why else would they be so insistent. If they could admit that the rampaging and insistence were extremely irritating to others, in poor form, and that this will not happen in the future, I would give a break. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also to note, I know that their interactions recently with ‬Aradicus77 look bad, but I agree with Woovee that Aradicus77‬ has become a real issue, given their combination of high volumes of edits and added text to high level articles on topics that they admit they don't understand, and which I suspect they are piecing together as they go on. That would frustrate anybody, and tbh am glad that Woovee at least tried, having had my own difficulties when I spoke up.[11]. That editor's career is going nowhere good. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't their first edit warring block, and isn't their first indef block for edit warring, stating that they "won't do more than one revert a day on an article" to convince an admin to unblock them before continuing edit warring. They have shown that a timed block will not prevent ongoing disruption through their edit warring. They are not responsible for Aradicus77‬'s behavior, but they are responsible for their own. - Aoidh (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee, you were blocked for edit warring, not for 3RR specifically. Good faith is not being questioned but this wasn't a one time mistake, it's a pattern of disruption. I highly suggest you read WP:GAB. - Aoidh (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That broken promise was on the 4 November 2025 during the Aradicus77 stress (for many of us), not like it was written in blood or stone 15 years ago and broken everyday since. Ceoil (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The block log is not cool, but not the worst have ever seen. Woovee, Aoidh's advice to reflect on WP:GAB is good, you certainly need to adjust some behavioural habits and maybe show evidence of awareness of why edit warring is bad. For example, today you almost derailed a GA review, disillusioning the nominator, reviewer and onlookers.... that's not cool and you could have achieved the same result with a more diplomatic approach. Do you want to spend your time here with people thinking you're a harsh and overly blunt, or thinking that you are somebody it's interesting and rewarding to work with. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh and @ToBeFree.

Why have both of you not sanctioned yet the other user who did 3RR in a row on the same page in less than 24 hours ?

As administrators, you are both supposed to scrutinize the one who fills a report at ANI as much as the recent history of the one who is reported. Check if their behaviour is fine. If an user goes at ANI to fill a demand, they have to be perfect.

That is factual. The other user who reported me, did 3RR in a row on purpose at the same article, which is edit war.

Their diffs:

1. diff1 [12]
2. diff2 [13]
3. diff3 [14].

Concerning my diffs,

The first [15] was because I was in the process to transfer two elements of the "Singles" section into a new section titled "promotional singles". I hadn't erased a single from the article contrary, I was moving it in another section !

You should have realized that I was no more in the frame of mind of edit war. The best proof is to check the content of the talk at Heaven or Las Vegas, I managed to solve a problem, convince the two persons who engaged into the discussion with me.

When a compromise was finally reached a few hours ago, I didn't rush to edit the article myself and change it (I would have been accuded of Own!), as the ANI report mentioned there were disruptive edits from me at Heaven or Las Vegas.

This is an unbased claim, inaccurate. @MFTP Dan, were my suggestions "disruptive edits" ? I really wonder why I have bothered to improve and advise the withdrawal of two highly problematic inaccurate facts at that atticle.

All in all, my big mistake.

Conclusion: @Ceoil, never bother to correct an article when other editors are doing un-constructive edits. It is time consuming and after all, who cares of factual mistakes on wikipedia.

Biographers make mistakes in their books. The community can let a few mistakes pass by as well. Woovee (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression that you race past what the sources say to prove what your gut says. And denigrate those sources along the way, hell or be damned. Am really starting to regret that I was standing up fr you earlier. Ceoil (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not. The book "Cocteau Twins Punks celestes", an authorised biography about the band, clearly said that those two singles were promo- only single in the US. In fact, one should have made this. "according to this French biography, these two releases were promo-only". And then add "according to Aston and 4AD, they were "singles" released un the US." Woovee (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As for my requested input, the editing on Heaven or Las Vegas was only disruptive the first two times you changed the material related to "Carolyn's Fingers" (spaced out, admittedly, one could have potentially missed that their edit had been reverted in that time), but you should have changed to proper attribution to your edits the very first time you made them. If you had done that, I am certain you would not have landed here. Aside from one mistake you made on the discography, which is probably the the nail in the blocking coffin, I can't speak for what you did elsewhere, Woovee, sorry. mftp dan ^oops 02:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Biographers make mistakes in their books" - this is a person who fundamently miunderstands how wikipedia works, and now support indef block. Ceoil (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried to explain to the editor that they were making misunderstandings of that level, but I feel in this case the problem is too big to teach out. mftp dan ^oops 02:31, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't distort my words. Some biographies published may contain unaccurate elements. Xhrn there isca doubt, we add all the different thesis, mentiinung them one after the other with "according to". Woovee (talk) 02:47, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate seeing this, but I'm not surprised. My own philosophy: If I've already reverted something twice, it is time to go touch grass and see if any other editor wants to take up the cause. If no other editor does, that is probably a good sign that it wasn't worth my arguing over it. CAVincent (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your philosophy is good, and having read SilkTork's earlier and unheaded comments above, not holding out hope that Woovee has the restraint to crawl out out of this one. Shame, unless they can tell us otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woovie, "Why have both of you not sanctioned yet the other user who did 3RR in a row on the same page in less than 24 hours ?

As administrators, you are both supposed to scrutinize the one who fills a report at ANI as much as the recent history of the one who is reported. Check if their behaviour is fine....this is a bullshit defence that tells me "no self-awareness", and you have learned nothing, and will repeat the same behaviour if unblocked. For shame. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is an unfair "crystal ball" comment. I wasn't aware I was reaching the 3RR on that article. I had taken note I had to be careful of the 3 articles mentioned at ANI.. I confused in my mind the "CT discography" article with the "template:CT". The other user basically reverted every edit of improvement I suggested at each CT article. Each time, I opened a discussion at every article when my edits were reverted. Did I make an edit war at ''Heaven or Las Vegas'' whereas my claim was justified ? The answer is no. I spent a huge amount of time, checking the sources, trying to convince users at those talks. I made one mistake confusing editing at CT discography with my edit8ng at Template CT. I dunno why I made this confusion: I have a pretty good memory. Tired. I don't understand this relentless pursuit and double standard. Anyone reading my replies at talk: ''Heaven or Las Vegas'' can see that I wanted to strive for collaborative work. Shame. Woovee (talk) 02:34, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in discussing the matter and I avoided taking action because I knew how drama-laden this necessary, good action would be. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not really enabling disruptive behaviourToBeFree, which is a slur, rather was trying to reason -if that is a sin- and last comment here was [16] 02:46, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shameful way from your part to distort my words and my work on wikipedia for years.@MFTP Dan per recent attitude and comment, I withdraw my opinions at Talk: Heaven or Las Vegas. You can take it in account if you consider them relevant or if other users of the article want they are not relevant, you could take their opinion first. I am washing my hands at any mistake I saw at CT article. Revert all my edits at those CT articles. One user there is a "sin" at the core of them. Shame. Woovee (talk) 02:55, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How in the hell is [17] enabling? Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, please have a look at the revision history of this page; you are repeatedly replying to a part of my comment I had removed before any response was made. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. You labelled me an enabler, and then I replied to you. At the very least you mjorly fucked up here and now have no standing. Ceoil (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I ... did try to apologize with a ping in the edit summary that removed my mistaken comment, and I did so quickly, and multiple minutes before you replied. My misunderstanding, for which I am still unchangedly sorry, was that you had written (instead of quoting) the "As administrators" text, and "for shame" at the end of the sentence. Combined with the previous request to add an automatic expiry to the block, I didn't even properly read the rest of the text; I thought that by writing this text you had reached a point where further comments needed to be removed as unproductive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFre: You can go to hell afac on this, although I do respect you otherwise :) Grrr, but no hard feelings. Ceoil (talk)

I demand that user @Ceoil stops writing anything at my talk. Woovee (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: why do you not explain why you haven't remarked the other user that they did 3RR ? And didn't you suggest, they have to be sanctionned too at least a week of rest. Why this double standard. When an administrator receives a question, they have to reply and explain their decision or their will to not sanction certain people. Woovee (talk) 03:12, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree Woovee (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't have to explain anything here at this time, no; I recused from taking administrative action and am never required to do so. I will now use Special:Mute/Woovee to prevent further pings. If you are ever unblocked, you are, however, welcome to let me know on my talk page and I'll un-mute you.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:30, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Same here Dan, but the more I dug into it, damnit, Woovee was right.[18] And yet the same person dubbed my edits with "Shame", "sin", tonight and now demand indefinite block. Woovee Leper. And the shame was on the other side. Woovee (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WooVee go to bed. I've seen you make genuinely valuable contributions to music-related articles, but nothing that you are doing here is helpful. CAVincent (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent, thanks for the feed back and good advice. It is highly appreciated. Woovee (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe simply agreeing to a 1RR restriction is sufficient to unblock this editor given their comments above and the behavior which led to the block, given that they pointedly stayed just below 3RR after previous blocks, while still engaging in widespread edit warring across multiple articles. They have shown no indication that they understand the reason for the block or the behavior will not continue, though even when they gave those assurances the last time they were indef blocked, they continued regardless. - Aoidh (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I was pinged, so I'm looking into this. Our natural philosophy is to gradually increase blocks to help educate users, and I would be prepared to do that if User:Aoidh has no objection, and if it appears that Woovee understands what the issues are. Woovee has blocks for two previous incidents plus this one, so three in total. The block log looks nasty with nine entries, but those are three incidents: the first in 2021 for edit warring on Bauhaus, which was raised to 2 weeks, then a month block in October this year for edit warring on Post-punk and Gothic rock, which was stepped up to an indefinite when Woovee continued a dispute with the (currently blocked) Aradicus77. Woovee was unblocked by the blocking admin, ToBeFree on condition Woovee accepted an interaction block, which it appears they have done so. It's worth noting, to be fair, that though a revert restriction was discussed by me, this was not actually imposed, so at this point Woovee has not broken their unblock condition. This current block is also for edit warring so that is the issue which needs addressing in any unblock. Now, with three blocks for the same reason, any possible unblock should not, in my mind, be immediate. I'm thinking that, provided Aoidh agrees, and we are assured that Woovee understands that this is a last warning because edit warring is very disruptive, that the block should be converted to six months, and the unblock conditions should be a) one revert per article per day, b) when Woovee feels another editor is wrong, they should raise the issue calmly and politely on the talkpage rather than via edit summaries or by continuing to edit slowly to avoid the one revert restriction, and c) if Woovee feels talkpage discussion is not being productive, they should follow one or more of the procedures discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution (such as Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Requests for comment, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard), and abide by any decisions made. Failure to abide by the conditions would result in an indefinite block which could only be appealed once every six months. And I suspect that given Woovee's block history, any future unblock would be very unlikely. As a community we distrust users who don't abide by unblock conditions. SilkTork (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think making an unblock appeal after six months per WP:SO with those unblock conditions would be reasonable, but I don't believe a timed block is the solution per their comments above. I think they need to show a genuine understanding of why they were blocked and an explanation as to why they continued edit warring after the previous block discussion, rather than having it automatically lapse after a given time period. - Aoidh (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'd suggest updating the block with a note saying that it can't be appealed for six months. SilkTork (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight:, do you agree with a possibility of an unblock appeal after six months or a timed block of x months ? May I ask if it is common standard practice that an user sees their block to be multiplied by 6 after a new issue ? Woovee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you re-apply in 6 months time. I don't think a timed block is a good idea. Escalating blocks vary widely. PhilKnight (talk) 06:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]