User talk:Painbearer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Urgent health problem

I have a severe, sever form of repetetive strain injury. I must really start effective treatment. Otherwise my work here and my actual job, as well my drumming endavours will be cut short. That's not what I want. I want to become stronger physically and become better human. It's a great pain for my tendons, but I think I need a big break. I want to press and put on some weight, maybe start swimming. Don't know, but I need physical improvement soon. That's why I won't be able to contribute on the same scale as before. Wish everyone the best. Love the community and the people.

Regards: Painbearer 18:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC) Chavdar

Good luck with your recovery - I hope all goes well! -- Natalya 23:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to happen to lots of people on wikipedia. God Bless. Oasis will make it better.--Crestville 14:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saw that you edited the Pop punk article

Saw that you had editied the pop punk article at some point, we're currently working alot of stuff out so if you want check out Talk:Pop punk. Also if you are not already, you might be interested in joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Thanx! P.S. Hope you get better from your injuries. Xsxex 18:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coldplay

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. Please don't resort to using profanity in your edit details. Thanks. --Madchester 21:35, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Keane

I thought Wikipedia was a place that storates all human knowledge. I think many other articles about bands are much bigger than this one and include also absurd topics. I'm not complaining about your work but you did firstly to mine. Many details from the band have been ommited from the article as well due to private reasons. I'm reverting your changes again but not considering them as vandalism as you're acting in good faith. And also, Keane are not Britpop. Hope you get well soon Fluence 21:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I won't give up also. The list of equipment seems a good idea for me, even creative information that is not completely at the public domain. I don't want to discuss also. Our destiny is to revert each other's edits for the rest of our livesFluence 22:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I should be asking for help not you. You started this. I don't know why you concentrate so on fucking. Does it affect to you? Wait, I know your answer. "Is the Wikipedia what is being affected and I tried to make the article as perfect as possible". There are thousands and even some featured articles worse than this one but you keep discussing with this one. Why you people hate Keane? Is not normal. If I don't like some band or artist I wouldn't go and destroy their article (e.g. Kelly Clarkson and I've never edited on her page). For three months no one ever complained about the article. Just now I posted it as a FA and GA for some reason people started editing and vandalising the page. And editing it as they think it would be perfect, like you. Fluence 22:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Rv

[edit] Coldplay & Keane

Ehh, just a question. Have you something against British bands? Becuase that's exactly what looks like Fluence 23:53, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed content from R.E.M. (band). Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Thank you. --james^(talk) 14:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avril Lavigne

I noticed you keep changing posts I made on the Avril Lavigne Page....why?

Now Avril Lavigne??... Why do you advocate on destroying pages? The Keane article is now perfect and you go and make it shorter. Shut the hell up and lost yourself. Go to the Uncyclopedia. You'll fit perfectly there. As I said, I won't give up. Never--Fluence 22:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Long time...

Well it's nice to hear from you at any rate! Is it getting better or worse?

What do you think of this new Oasis "greatest hits" album? The tracklisting looks a bit incomplete to me. No Whatever? No Stop Crying Your Heart Out? No Roll It Over? Nothing off of Be Here Now? They should have made it a triple album, crammed some more essential in there. As it is, it seems to enforce the myth that Oasis have done nothing of worth since 1995.

What do you reckon?

Well, hope you feel better anyway.--Crestville 21:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And All Around The World. Don't forget All Around The World. Well, I'll speak to you when you get back bud, take care.--Crestville 21:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AMA request

Hi, I put your request on hold, pending some more discussion on Talk:Keane, I left a note there for all the editors, and really, I think that will be plenty. If the situation doesn't show some good progress within the week, please contact me on my talk page and I'll be glad to help. I'm available if you want to discuss this meanwhile, I just think that your request is somewhat premature. Have patience, a dispute on wikipedia is not worth jeopardising your health. Maybe take a break for a bit from editing and see if that helps. User:Pedant 18:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Smashing Pumpkins

If you can point me to an outline of band article guidelines, that would be helpful. I am familiar though with the guideline that there be no empty subject headings (ie. "History"). And you misrepresent my intentions; certainly my revert was not intended to be "malicious". WesleyDodds 08:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I've browsed and noted it's the preferred way, but there's no general guideline that outlines it. That's just how aband articles tend to be laed out. Personally, I think grouping everything under "history" makes one section disproportionally large. I do see some sense in the no empty headers guideline that part of the Featured Music Project evaluation. I think I'm basically fine with the current layout as long as the "Early days" subheader is removed, since it's fairly redundant (we all know we're talking about the early days of the band in that section, because it's the start of the history section). WesleyDodds 21:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:150px-Jonny.jpg

The problem is that you have tagged the image with a Creative Commons license. Unless you are the copyright holder of the image, or the copyright holder (or website of the copyright holder) gives you permission to release the image under Creative Commons, you cannot tag it as such. By doing so you are giving up some of the rights of the copyright holder. I cannot find any evidence the copyright holder authorizes you to release the image under Creative Commons. -Nv8200p talk 16:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] U2

Great job with the cleanup! Congratulations! --201.40.191.111 18:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi - yes top job indeed. well overdue. But can I offer a few points - see Talk:U2 --Merbabu 23:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

I agree with you, most of that belongs on the album page. However, I added some of it back because its removal messed up citations that were used more than once. If you remove more material, please be careful and make sure it doesn't cause the same problem. WesleyDodds 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So you think I wouldn't do the same thing?

You're doing the same thing as me. You're not collaborating with someone, also on Green Day, Coldplay, Avril Lavigne and R.E.M. I can assure I won't be blocked. Anyway, you must be a son of a bitch to recognize another--Fluence 22:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to straighten out this one point.

You seem to feel as if I am 'taking Fluence's side' and while that is not entirely correct, it would be understandable for me to be doing so. Fluence requested an advocate, because he was having difficulty with having productive discussions with some of his fellow editors on Keane and felt that his points were being ignored. I accepted his request. (I'm not doing this because it's fun, but because it is a drain on community resources to have tiny unimportant things blow up into arbitration, blocking, banning etc.) It is entirely appropriate in such a case for Fluence to request an advocate.

I advised Fluence to discuss the issues with his fellow editors. You are one of those editors. He tried to discuss with you. You were apparently unable or unwilling to discuss with him, so he reverted your edits. You have both made changes to the article without discussing them. Do you see how that is not a productive technique?

If you discuss things as equals, you will be more likely to reach a conclusion together than if you take the approach

"Look you are a stupid Mexican who can't speak English well and has bad grammar, you just are screwing up the article and you should just leave".

The anti-bias project would probably advise you that native English-speaking editors are 'a dime a dozen', but that Wikipedia needs more editors willing to brave their way across a language barrier, in order to help counter the Anglocentric/Amerocentric bias that en.wikipedia.org displays.

How many languages do you speak? What other language Encyclopedias are you able to contribute to? It's quite OK to contribute to only one, of course, but please don't hammer on somebody for trying to contribute outside of their 'linguistic comfort zone'.

Fluence made an effort to try to find a solution to the issue of not being understood and the issue of being treated poorly... partly because of his language issues.

He located the AMA, and requested help.

That was a good thing. An AMA Advocate usually can help the discussion along, if all editors are willing to discuss without rancor. If not, it is entirely appropriate for an Advocate to advise an escalation to an arbitration committee. At that point it is no longer in the hands of anyone involved, and the wrong version of the article will be protected, and the wrong person will be blocked from editing, etc... This is not the easiest or best solution.

The best solution is to work this out between the involved parties, patiently and rationally. Next best is to involve an advocate to help, either to help the advocee express himself, or to direct the advocee to an appropriate solution. Frankly at this point, the appropriate solution is possibly to block you both, and protect the wrong version of the article.

It would be better if you would start trying to understand Fluence's position. Then you might be better equipped to reason with him.

If you are also in a position such that you feel you need help expressing yourself in a civil manner, or you need help understanding his position or any similar problem, feel free to visit the AMA request page and request some help for yourself.

I won't be the one to do it, as I am already Fluence's advocate... if both of you have an advocate, the advocates can discuss the issue civilly with one another. I cannot help him communicate with you when you are in this "I am so frustrated I feel the need to use words like fuck and bullcrap to effectively express myself" state. It would be like talking into a telephone pole. If you don't want an advocate, that's also fine, but you must behave in a civil manner and attempt to reason and work toward improving the article. There isn't any other option, that is the only thing Wikipedia is for. User:Pedant 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I know you are a good editor and I have faith that you will make a better choice than some that you have recently made. What's happening right now is not working very well, wouldn't you agree? User:Pedant 11:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I apologise, in the confusion of reading all the discussion, I apparently made a mistake, thinking I was supposed to be Fluence's advocate. I see now that yes, it was you who requested help. I'm sorry. I did not say you were acting uncivilised, I said uncivil, if you recall, and by that I mean acting in violation of WP:CIVIL. I understand that my making this mistake has been frustrating for you, and I don't know how to repair that. I'm sorry. However, most of my advice still stands: both you and Fluence, as well as any other editors involved have got to cool it with the personal attacks on each other. Until that happens no progress can be possible. Everything else, has already been said. I'm really sorry to have made such a lame mistake, advocating for the wrong side... If you want me to act as your advocate, I'd be glad to do so, or I will get you a different one. Either way works for me, just tell me what you would prefer. User:Pedant 23:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Test

Thank you for experimenting with the page System of a Down on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. TheRanger 16:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikify/Cleanup

Hi, please don't add wikify or cleanup tags to articles which are largely ok (i.e. Placebo (band)), if there is a specific issue you want cleaning up then leave anote on the talk page. Martin 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rattle and Hum, U2

Thanks for your message - I think it is good to discuss these things. Regarding Rattle & Hum, it is a mixed live and studio album. It has 17 tracks, 6 of which are live recordings of U2 playing their older songs or covers, 9 newly released studio recordings, and another 2 tracks of other people's music. So, if i had to chose 1 or the other, I would go with studio, BUT I think the reality is it is both. Anyway, last week i prepared a response when it came up last week, but didn't post it cos I got a bit carried away i terms of length. Anyway, maybe now is a good time to post it - see Talk:U2 for the full explanation. My apologies if I am explaining things you already know.

As for the U2_discography page i disagree with its current listing. Personally, i think it can be listed in both studio and live lists - that seems the most sensible and pragmatic solution, but i know some purists will demand one or the other. If we had to choose, then i would say studio - ie, 9 studio tracks compared to 6 live tracks. --Merbabu 22:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of references

I saw you removed a whole lot of references from U2. COuld you please explain this? I see no logic to it. I cn understand if you thought one 1 or 2 were not WP:RS but you've removed dozens and a variety of sources. Please reply at Talk:U2. THanks --Merbabu 22:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:20050725 172151 Oasis250705.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:20050725 172151 Oasis250705.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Chowbok ☠ 01:22, 25 November 2006 (UTC)