User talk:ChrisB

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Pearl Jam outselling Nirvana?

You said this but in that case Wikipedias discographys of the bands are wrong because if they were right Nirvana would havwe sold moore. I think you are mixing you're own opinon of the bands with facts.

[edit] Yacht Rock

Chris, why are you so vested in protecting the farce that is "Yacht Rock"? When I state the straight fact (not opinion) that "rock critics, WHO, IN FACT, NEVER CONCEIVED OF THIS MUSIC AS A DISTINCT GENRE AT THE TIME" you removed this as an injection of pov/vandalism. Now granted, my assertion that "However, in subsequent posts on Channel 101's forum, Ryznar and Lyons left open the possibility that the show might continue in some form outside of Channel 101,PARTICULARLY IF THEY CAN PERPETUATE ITS "EXISTENCE" CONCEPTUALLY VIA WIKIPEDIA. A RECENT "YACHT ROCK NIGHT" AT CHICAGO'S EMPTY BOTTLE (DEC. 23, 2006) IS AN EXAMPLE OF(NIGHT)LIFE IMITATING (NON)ART(ROCK)" IS speculative. However, the fact that the earliest "source" cited in the article is an obscure internet reference in 1994 to the music of Jimmy Buffet seems to all but admit that NO ONE in the 1980's used this term -- except for that anonymous college friend of the creator of the series. The "Yacht Rock" entry is a "brilliant" manipulation of the "tool" that is Wikipedia. Better marketing through vigilant editing.

[edit] Pat Smear

In the interview Pat says how he was asked to become a member of the band and how Kurt always said Nirvana needed a forth member. Pat was also given demos so he could add his guitar parts. That is concrete proof right there that he was considered a full time member of the band. Just because they never recorded another album doesn't mean hes not a member. Kurt Cobain considered him a member just like Krist and Dave. Also Pat appeared in numerous promo pics for the band. It is accepted universally among the Nirvana community that Pat WAS a member of the band and NOT just a touring guitaristMiamiballer2k5 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain

Can I ask you a question? Do you actually believe Kurt was murdered? From what I can gather, you don't, but I'm not sure.

The reason I ask is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination

What if there was something similar for everyone interested in speculating on Cobain's death? Don't you think that, considering the law AND everyone close to Cobain have all closed the case, that it's embarrassing and approximates urban legend AND slander that wikipedia is forced to entertain internet extremists?

I really think you should consider helping to petition for a separation of the two articles. This sort of insanity only does his memory injustice and makes him into an E! True Hollywood Story. Mistertruffles 21:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, look: here are the first five pages of celebrity biography articles which I selected completely at random off the top of my head:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lucas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Russell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spike_Lee http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

NONE of them contains a preface anything like the Cobain opening paragraphs, which contain at least three ridiculously non-NPOV statements, particularly the "curious death" and cheeseball statement about him never wanting to be famous. You know more than anyone from monitoring that page that Cobain has insane fans galore. I really think you should start nudging the page more toward impartiality. I know it sounds like I'm telling you what to think, but I hope you can see where I'm coming from. The difference between the Cobain opening paragraphs and 99% of all other celebrity prefaces is obvious. Mistertruffles 23:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old Age lyrics

:Regardless, what exactly is the slander point here? What's the conjecture? Specifically?

That's easy. You're acting on the typical wikipedia bias, which is that it entertains what fans would like to say, instead of acting on what's true. You see this all the time, all over the place -- I just read Keane's page, for example, and it mentions an article calling the singer a cokehead and then follows with "this journalist was roundly criticized by members of the Keane messageboard". It's the usual farce that goes on with these pages--if there is a controversy surrounding a band, the fans use it as an opportunity to weigh in and turn themselves into the new gods about it. As a result, you wouldn't really even know that Kurt loved Courtney, and half of his marriage section puts her on trial. Any intelligent person can see a real encyclopedia article would never be arranged or written like this.

:For example, regardless of Love's claim, it is physically impossible for "Pennyroyal Tea" to have been a co-write. Nirvana first performed "Pennyroyal Tea" in April of 1991, months before Love and Cobain started their relationship. And the only difference between the April 1991 recording and the In Utero version was the lyrics in the first line of the song. The music was identical. Even if she wrote that line, it could hardly be claimed that she "co-wrote" the song.

First off, I've heard they got together in May 1991, so what you're saying doesn't even make sense--it would mean that she was around at the time he wrote it, and specifically around before it emerged live. I hate knowing retarded creepy-fan factoids like this, so I went and looked it up. She and Dave Grohl were in contact in the winter of 1990 when the song in SOME primordial form was written with Dave Grohl--probably with lyrics that had nothing to do with its eventual result, as it usually went with Kurt. But who cares exactly how much she was around? It sounds like she was, pure and simple, around during its inception. Also, off on a tangent, she has said that Billy Corgan's greatest hit stole its most famous line, "the killer in me is the killer in you" from a letter she wrote him. These people ALL stole from each other, and it's only her that gets slandered, and I think it's ridiculous and sexist. I believe she has kept the amount of lyrics she influenced on In Utero a secret because all it would do ultimately is humiliate Kurt, not exonerate her.

:And the rumors about Love's songwriting went way beyond what's addressed in the paragraph. They were loudest in 1998 when any idiot could look at the liner notes of Celebrity Skin and see the writing credits. That's not in any way what the paragraph in Kurt's article is attempting to address.

What you're saying here is insinuating the obvious so the obvious becomes innuendo. It's nonsense. Love made the liner notes to CS explicit so that she wouldn't have to deal with this kind of stupidity regarding the album's songwriting, and as a result exposed plenty of creative partnerships that probably would've ended up as blind donations otherwise. Only someone looking to confirm their already held bias would think otherwise.Mistertruffles 18:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey. I know the way I addressed you caused some friction, but I want to say that I do appreciate your efforts to keep Kurt's page impartial. It looks like an ongoing job that you do a big part in. Thanks. Mistertruffles 04:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of pop punk bands

Quintessential did you even read the discussion,, if you did you did not post anything there please read the talk page before you delete thanks user:xsxex

One person declaring something "quintessential" is what Wiki calls POV. "Quintessential" is an opinion, not a fact. It violates Wiki guidelines (see WP:NPOV). Please don't add it again. -- ChrisB 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

ChrisB - i think you are mistaking the intention. first, The Ramones (absolutely) are the hands down Quintessential Pop Punk - this is PROVEN by the number of bands that claim them as an influence (Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Queers, Teenage Head, Screeching Weasel, U2, etc..) and a few have even covered ENTIRE albums. - second. - if we are going to consider the possiblilty of Quintessential bands, than Green Day and blink-182 fit the bill. My purpose of including Fall Out Boy was to create discussion, which you have successful obliterated by deleting the edition. Please reconsider your decision. - I would also like to point out that I have spent the last couple hours going over the bands listed in the Pop Punk List and have made some significant editions (such as Bad Religion) .. and Crimpshrine. Anyway.. point being, please read what I wrote on the discussion page and take that into consideration. I am under the impression that Wikipedia is a place for discussion and not a venue for absolutes. If you want references for The Ramones, Green Day, or blink-182... read the articles associated with them. This is not opinion. Fall Out Boy remains to be seen, but a number of magazines and news sources have pointed to them. Please respond - user:xsxex

Honestly, spend some time reading Wikipedia guidelines. WP:V and WP:OR covers the "PROVEN" and "This is not opinion" issue - no matter how true something is, no editor is allowed to draw that conclusion himself. WP:NOT covers the "create discussion" issue - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum in any way. (See #6 under the WP:NOT link.)
You could certainly argue that Wiki is not a venue for absolutes. But they're talking about articles not lists. The "List" pages are exactly that - list pages. (Actually, the lists are being deprecated in favor of Categories, given that Categories are easier to verify and manage.) They're not intended to judge anything to be better or more important than something - they're just lists. -- ChrisB 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


ChrisB ok.. interested, obviously i have not had time to digest the titanic amount of guidelines which wikipedia makes available. I think I'm not alone when i reveal that I'm learning as i go. Thanks for pointing out the issue about this not being a forum for discussion. Ok. i can understand that (to a point, what are we doing here than?) - I think I lost you with the whole part about deprecating the lists. - explain that again? -hmm.. after some though I can see what you are say, which is basically items in a list are just that, a list of vegetables is a list of vegetables, a person can't say that a broccoli is the Quentessenial vegetable. OK. - - hmmm. all i have left to say is given that i think the main article on pop punk which is still definitely a work in progress, should make it more clear about the important role The Ramones play in the genre. Thanks! Word. - xsxex


Chris B.. hey work in progress, yes! Yeah wow at this point I am totally in fully agreement you about that whole quinessential thing.. i dont really know what i was thinking but there did need to be some more organization with the List of pop punk bands.. anyway.. whats going on with the whole "pop punk revival" well thanks for speaking up in the "merge discussion" .. we got some ways to go with the article, but this was not the right direction. do you do a lot of writing about punk? i am attempting to do some writing about punk and (as i've gathered from your profile.. you do too) are you on myspace? im trying to connect with fellow writers who are interested and have knowledge of this subject material. Thanks! Xsxex 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Everclear

Since the band is named after the drink, how'd you figure the band deserves the unadorned Everclear name yet you see fit to exile the booze to Everclear (alcohol) and not even link one to the other? —Morven 06:37, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)

I moved the band to Everclear (band) and made Everclear a disambiguation. I fixed all the links. —Morven 07:12, Aug 28, 2004 (UTC)
Apologies. I couldn't figure out why the alcohol def was just sorta stuffed at the end of the article about the band. Completely agree with the move and the disambiguation. -- ChrisB 20:06, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Matthew Good

Hello, you suggested on the Matthew Good talk page that we lock the article for a little while. I wanted to say that I think we should proceed with this, as it seems to be taking longer than we'd hoped for the prepubescent anonymous hordes to mature. It is unlikely that something new will occur that will merit an addition to the article in the next say, 2 weeks anyway. I'm unsure of the procedure of locking articles but you have my support to go ahead with this if you know how. Thanks, Kurieeto 20:48, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana

Well, in order to get Nirvana into the FAC, we may need a few more references... did you used some? igordebraga ≠ 01:10, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] In a Coma

Hello. What's your source for your recent edits (regarding the contents of the bonus CD and DVD for In a Coma) to Matthew Good? It's exciting news, and I'd like to pass around whatever link you found that information at to friends and so on. --Simon Crowley 22:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Wha-boom!  :)
http://www.chartattack.com/damn/2005/08/0410.cfm
-- ChrisB 23:16, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] whoops

sorry bout stepping in like that - thought that was all you were doing and wanted things to flow and link a little better, although i didnt really have time to look over the article as a whole. good work.
Syynapse 04:00, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, no problem! I got that first part out and debated removing more or just writing the thing, and ended up writing the thing. It definitely looked sketchy in the meantime. It's one thing about Wiki: no "I'm working on it!" tag.  :) -- ChrisB 19:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
{{inuse}} :P Alexforcefive

[edit] Emo

I apologize for re-adding the external link to Emoscene.com, but I had added it about 2 weeks ago, it was up for a week and a half, and then was taken off. I'm not sure why, because it's not spam, I'm not trying to sell anything, and it's completely relevant to this entry, because it's a community site for emo kids where they can create free blogs and discuss the emo lifestyle. The only other link you have on here is for Fourfa, which is a good informational site, but as far as I can tell, it hasn't been updated in a long time and it offers nothing in the way of a community. I offer a free resource for emo kids to build a community entirely for them. If thats not relevant or worthy enough to be included, then so be it, but I honestly don't see where you're coming from. Have you even checked out the site? Thanks for your time.


I'd appreciate if you'd IM or e-mail me about the emo page some time. You do most of the edits and I think there are some huge discrepancies in the way you've presented the site. IM me at DFelon204409 or e-mail me a GaleriansX at aol dot com. Thanks. -DFelon204409

As I tried to contribute before you so cavalierly wiped it, "emo" was originally applied to Rites of Spring and Rites of Spring only. Flipside #47 from 1985 (probably found on eBay without too much trouble) contains a interview with RoS in which they mention offhandedly that some folk in the DC scene had taken to calling them "emo" because they sometimes became emotional during performances. I'm sure it didn't take long for the term to also be applied to Embrace and then other DC bands, but it didn't apply to anyone but RoS at first. Druff 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't "cavalierly" wipe it: what you said here isn't what you wrote in the article. Your edits made it sound like nobody called it "emo-core", which is factually inaccurate. Regardless of the specific origins of the term, people spent the next decade using the term "emo-core" to almost exclusively describe the DC scene, which is significantly more important than where the term started in its first weeks of existence.
Here's the real problem: the original source of the word "emo" has been under debate for years. The initial accounts credited a Flipside interview with MacKaye, but nobody's been able to cough up any of those articles, including the Rites of Spring interview. You've suggested that I go look for the article, but, honestly, if you're making this assertion and trying to add it to the entry, YOU should find the article to confirm it first. At the very least, if you have the article, you should provide a partial transcript to discussion. It's the responsiblity of each editor to provide sources for their edits, not the responsibility of other editors to verify it for them.
Even still, if Rites of Spring didn't coin the term themselves - if it was something that DC folks called them - then Rites of Spring's viewpoint can't the end-all be-all answer, even if ended up being the first printed usage of the term. Regardless of whether the band said what you claim, are there enough available sources to support the case that they were the first band ever tagged as "emo", and that NO other bands were being called "emo" at the same time?
This is the first I have EVER heard this assertion made, and, as I said, it's not my responsibility to verify your point for you. I've tried to rewrite the article to accommodate your point, but it would be journalistically dubious to make the claim without the proper sources to support it. (And I suspect you'll need more than just that one interview to do that.) -- ChrisB 05:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I'm putting my message in this section, but I didn't want to create a new section called Emo. I was the one who added the verify and original research tags, and I explained why on the talk page. I'm sure it's on your watchlist, but I wanted to say hello and let you know right here. Look forward to talking to you! --ParkerHiggins ( talk contribs ) 04:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)


I completely disagree with your removal of the Guy Picciotto quote in the Backlash section, but since I can't be wasting my time checking and reverting, I'll just give up. You should revert it and see if some other people agree with you. - Dale Nixon


Hey ChrisB. Ian Mackaye and Guy Picciotto have never identified with emo music in any way. It's a stretch to call them "prominent members of first-gen emo bands" when they don't recognize that (imposed) label at all. I don't care who they've influenced 15-20 years later--clumping these people in with groups they having nothing to do with both musically and lyrically is ridiculous.

Also, you need to see this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbdh0Qm_5A0

--Phil Larin

[edit] Nirvana vandalism

Please revert nirvana vandalism. Last edit by anyonymous is vandalism(deleted early life with "tha sucks ass") --Msoos 13:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Grohl

Nice recent edits. That article seems to need a lot of tending. Glad it wasn't me that time. Also nice to meet another Matt Good fan every now and again. :) Jacqui ★ 22:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, the article definitely needs some work. I'm kind of amused that half the article talks about his drumming, then there's a section at the end called "The Drummer" (and that said "The Drummer" section references the Queen HoF performance that he played guitar on).  :) If I have time, I'm hoping to expand the article a good bit - there definitely could be a lot more about Nirvana and at least something about his time in Scream. -- ChrisB 02:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

hay, i read the Grohl page often, and have noticed that you try your best to take good care of it, so well done.

[edit] Matt Good

Hi,

The statement suggested that it was ONLY available via Matt's online store which was incorrect...perhaps it should read "this is the only version promoted by Good himself during his live shows and his online store". Dowew 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] List of Early Emo Groups

I just dropped by to say I noticed you're in the edit history a lot for this list, and I appreciate your work. I also left a comment in the "Whoops" section above. Alexforcefive 15:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy 14:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Emocore Redirect

I apologise for not checking thoroughly, and for not signing the comment. Farewell! - SevenEightTwo

[edit] Edit war on Emo (slang)

Please try to discuss disputes on Talk:Emo (slang). Reverting over and over again doesn't ultimately do anything. It puts articles into some sort of metastable state, which, for the purpose of an "encyclopedia", is useless. If you find discussion insufficient, then try some of the things at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. Someone42 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Referring to scars as "emo" is done all of the time by my Emo friends, I can't really add sources by writing down thirty names. But it's truer than the sky is blue, trust me. Look at my contributions. I don't lie.--ikiroid 21:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that Wiki has a policy against what's called original research. Read that link and you'll see what I'm talking about. You and your thirty friends constitute original research. Statements in Wiki have to have actual sources. -- ChrisB 21:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, fine, delete it. I wasn't gonna wait a couple months or years for this to appear somewhere else before I added it in, but it looks like I'll have to. I'm aware of the original research policy. There are no sources of it. The whole emo culture has expanded too quickly to find any worthwhile books or encyclopedias for me to use, and the internet sources are, like the Wikipedia article, sparadic and not very informative. Sorry to contribute to an edit war, I only had good intentions to improve the article.--ikiroid 21:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Also...

Why remove the (totally disputed) (cleanup) tabs? The situation with neutrality hasn't changed, the external links are still a joke, and no one has agreed on what to add to the article, let alone clean it up. I'm adding the templates back in.--ikiroid | (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

You edited my 27 Club page, made it...Good. Thanks very much, I was tired when I submitted it. Oxen Rockler, 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parental Advisory stickers

Hi there - As the person who put the stickers back on those album covers, I would like to say that they are important, as on many an occsion I have bought an album which had no sticker on it, only to find, upon playing it, that it was stuffed full of expletives. People have the right to see immediately whether or not an album has any swear-words in them, whether they are looking at the box in their local shop or looking up the album on Wikipedia.

[edit] Parental Advisory stickers - AGAIN

Hi there - As the person who put the stickers back on those album covers, I would like to say that they are important, as on many an occsion I have bought an album which had no sticker on it, only to find, upon playing it, that it was stuffed full of expletives. People have the right to see immediately whether or not an album has any swear-words in them, whether they are looking at the box in their local shop or looking up the album on Wikipedia. PLEASE KEEP THOSE GODDAMN STICKERS! RichardHarrold, 20:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ADDITIONAL POINT - one of my local record stores puts the stickers on, whether they have them in HMV or wherever you Yanks (if you are one) get your music or not. 86.27.54.227 (RichardHarrold), 22:12, 22 January 2006

[edit] Portlanders

If the definition is "With ties to," then everybody belongs in the category. If it's "born in," that is a rational critera. BalooUrsidae 04:24, 8 February 2006

That is absolutely not your call to make. The distinction is for people who are well-known with their association with a city. Bill Gates is a prominent Seattleite, but he wasn't born there. You shouldn't be unilaterally altering a category without opening the change for discussion. -- ChrisB 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Your definition of "from" is not congruent with the English language. If you move someplace else, you're still from where you moved from, not where you moved to. BalooUrsidae 04:36, 8 February 2006

Again, NOT YOUR CALL TO MAKE. Check the other resident categories, for God's sake. These as well: List of Seattleites, List of Portlanders. It is popular vernacular to refer to someone as a New Yorker if they live in New York or an Atlantan if they live in Atlanta. Torquing an entire category because YOU FEEL DIFFERENTLY is absolutely unacceptable. -- ChrisB 04:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's goal is accuracy, not deceptive inclusion in categories that which are not applicable. BalooUrsidae 04:43, 8 February 2006

Whose fucking version of "accuracy" are you talking about? Elliott Smith was a Portlander, and was well-known at one time for being so. The definition of "Portlander" IS NOT RESTRICTED TO PEOPLE BORN THERE. -- ChrisB 04:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Deliberate mis-statements of fact does not make one accurate. Also notice how I am not going out of my way to be a total luser with childish foul language. BalooUrsidae 04:47, 8 February 2006

By your claim, the definition of "American" should be "someone born in America". Unfortunately for you, the dictionary definition of "American" can be found here, and doesn't support your argument. Same for "New Yorker" here.
Wiki insists that changes be supported by legitimate sources, and you can't possibly come up with one that supports your narrow definition of "Portlander". -- ChrisB 04:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Tom McCall is all the authority anyone needs in Oregon. BalooUrsidae 05:08, 8 February 2006

"Tom McCall is all the authority anyone needs in Oregon." Care to explain what that means? -- ChrisB 05:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Port-land-ers

I saw your editing of Art Alexakis. FYI, the criteria for Category:Portlanders is "People born in Portland, Oregon." Perhaps that should be changed. -Will Beback 07:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indie Rock

Please explain why you deleted my Future of Indie Rock section. The is a definite paradox between being called indie and being on a major label. The term indie was not originally intended to describe a sound but rather a position in relation to mainstream, major label music. That's the rationale behind the comparison to alternative music, as alternative too was intended to describe an "alternative" to mainstream music. First alternative, and now indie, have been incorporated by the major labels due to their potential for making money. This is not to say that a band can't be indie and popular. But a band can't be manufactured by a major label as an imitation of something indie and still be indie. The idea of indie and a major label are antithetical. User:Havardj

[edit] Cause of death

You might want to avoid the "cause of death disputed" category for Terri Schiavo because there was a proximate cause of death of dehydration that is clear. Of course, after that, it gets more complicated. -- Oingoboingo 10:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indie Rock Again

I still think that there should be a future of indie rock section, so I reinstated it. I expanded the discussion, and included a reference to an article that explores the issue, because I feel you were correct to accuse me of original research (although the article was the first hit after googling -death of indie rock-, and there were many more). I certainly don't mind discussing this further, as I am welcome to your suggestions on how to improve the section. However, please don't competely erase my section without consulting with me first. User:Havardj By the way, I've tried to emphasize in the article that its not that I or anyone else thinks that independent music will go away, as there will continue to be music produced by independent labels. What I've tried to emphasize is that the term "indie rock" has been appropriated by major labels; hence the paradox when major label acts are described as indie. That's where the comparison to alternative lies. Both are terms used to describe music that came to be used outisde of the context in which they were originally used (or in the case of indie, is in the process of coming to be used in such a way). I think this may be the root of our misunderstanding, so if you wish to edit my section, you might try to flesh this out more. User:Havardj

[edit] Are you a Hum fan?

===>If so "Hello!" If not, "hello," anyway. Let me know on my Talk page, thanks. -Justin (koavf), talk 23:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help on the Kurt Cobain article

I think together we did a good job cleaning up the Addiction and Death section and boiling it down to citeable facts. Tarcieri 00:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

I feel that turning the "trivia" into a useful sentence is better than a quick reversion. So I commend your choice on reworking the Mercury reference in Cobain. BabuBhatt 03:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to explain the reason for the initial reversion: I get frustrated by drive-by edits that throw in a random piece of information that may or may not have significance to the rest of the article. (A few people have tried to drop in notes about other bands that seem to do nothing other than to use Kurt's words and/or their possible influence on Nirvana to elevate those bands.)
Kurt wasn't notably a Queen fan, and used the Mercury reference simply as a comparison to express his feelings. The edit (which had been done in the past) seems more notable to Mercury than to Cobain. What I mean by that: it acts like it's more important to the editor that Cobain said something about Mercury, not that the mention was important to Cobain's life. (A previous editor a few weeks ago tried to ram in the claim that Nirvana was influenced by Queen, which there's no evidence of.)
We can't include every piece of trivia about Cobain in the article. It's just not feasible. And my personal preference is that we should include the most notable elements. That Neil Young was so affected by Cobain's mention of his lyric is significant, given his personal reaction and that he dedicated part of Sleeps with Angels in response. That Kurt mentioned Mercury seems decidedly less so. (An example not in the article: Kurt's mention of Pete Townsend in Journals isn't significantly important to an article about Cobain.)
I'm okay with the current version, but I hate having to rewrite something seemingly unimportant to make it noteworthy just because someone (who has no vested interest in the article) wants to drop it in. -- ChrisB 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Makes sense, but as a minor fan who hasn't read the suicide note, the Mercury fact is interesting to me. BabuBhatt 04:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Derek and the Dominos

Many musicians and critics alike consider the a supergroup because all the members had acheived previous success with other bands and were well established musicians, Eric Clapton was with the Yardbirds, Cream and Blind Faith (another supergroup), Duane Allman with The Allman Brothers Band and Carl Radle, Bobby Whitlock and Jim Gordon were all members of Delaney & Bonnie & Friends. If you have a problem with me reverting the edit back to calling them a supergroup don't hesitate to tell me. Thanks -- Patman2648 18:55 March 29 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dave Grohl

Stop messing with the Dave Grohl page when people fix it.

Okay, goofball - how exactly were they "fixing" it? Details, please? -- ChrisB 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, someone told me to type that, then I read the reasons for the changes and you were correct to change them. Sorry. --Pirate Thom 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. No worries! -- ChrisB 21:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

Regarding the article Moments in Grace, which you tagged for speedy deletion with the reason "it is an article about a band, singer, musician, or musical ensemble that does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7)", I wanted you to know that I have removed the speedy deletion tag. This article does not qualify for speedy deletion because the article says that the band has released an album, this is an assertion of significance. If you still want the article to be deleted, please use the WP:AFD process. Thanks! Stifle 00:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retort to your emo comments

You say my entries were too POV/original research oriented, well I was trying to document what I have seen and experienced. Since your emo entry is so FUBAR I thought it might make sense to have something that makes sense and is *accurate* for that entry. Your deletion of what I tried to add was really dumb. I suggest you run by what I was saying to some one who has actually been to an emo show, rather than some overzealous editor who knows nothing about the topic. I saw Julia, 400 Years, Still Life, Republic of Freedom Fighters, Constatine Sankathi, Anasarca, Shotmaker, and many others live. I'm going by first hand experience not what I read somewhere. There are no academic histories of punk rock, I'm as good as it gets, so I really suggest you put the stuff back that I posted up there. If my writing sucks and that's the problem I can work on it more, or maybe you or some one else can clean it up, but the information is correct. This Boys Life, Texas is the Reason, My Chemical Romance bullshit, is so far wrong it is MINDBLOWING! thanks. [[Morpheus12]

It's not my policy. It's Wikipedia's: Wikipedia:No original research. We are disallowed from including content that hasn't already been published by a reputable source. And don't be so arrogant to claim that you're the only source - it's not like nobody was publishing zines in DC in the mid-80s.
And, if you'd bothered to read the article, you'd notice that it already talks about what you were getting at: that fans of original emo detest that "emo" is used to describe something else. It's a legitimate opinion, one that I share.
But your version blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Emo is what it is, it's what people decide it is, it's a decade too late to claim that one thing is emo and everyone else is full of shit. -- ChrisB 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Comments

Chris, thanks for your response, you made some sense I may have been a little too P.O.ed. I really think though you need to add some kind of section about emo having been coopted by the mainstream and distorted from its original principles. You do mention a debate about what it is, how it has gone and been mainstream for some time, but you also need to mention people who have challenged this and not accepted the mass marketing of emo. I don't understand why this perspective wouldn't be included, for example, Fox News on wikipedia mentions its liberal critics and the New York Times mentions its conservative critics. You should make mention of a criticism of emo as something to be mass marketed and watered down for profit and personal gain of people who are largely ignorant of its history and original intent.

I just re-read the whole thing again and there is more of what I'm talking about in the emo entry than I remembered, but I still want to encourage you to include more. thanks.[[Morpheus12]

[edit] Wikiproject Alternative music

Hey, looking at your edits I thought I'd ask you if you are interested in participating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music, which I just started.

On a related subject, I think we can work together to get R.E.M. to at least be a Good Article. I did a small edit right now but I'll work in greater depth on it later. WesleyDodds 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jcon91

ur stupid 198.150.224.3 (Jcon91) 20:20, 18 April 2006

dude i have no life, i can do this all day. Jcon91 01:37, 19 April 2006

dude you will never look even close as good as i do. put ur pic on hotornot.com once and tell me what you get.. and i have all the comments from ppl to prove it. you're prolly some fat ass that can't even get some. do you work? cuz i dont have to. im in the national guard and im making money by doing nothing. later Jcon91 02:46, 20 April 2006

PLEASE show me of pic of yourself, mr. ripped Jcon91 02:52, 20 April 2006

  • sigh* yea blame bush for all that shit.... 1st time ever in history that a country goes against the UN. smart move. i bet you voted bush anyway so why are you bitchin'

why are we fighting.. dont we both love hair *ahem not glam* metal? :) well i know knowone loves it more then me so

[edit] Krist Novoselic

In this article you wrote Cobain and Novoselic started a Creedence Clearwater Revival cover band, in which Cobain played drums and Novoselic sang and played guitar. . Is that true? I researched this information, nothing has been said regarding this. I removed that sentence off of the article. If you can provide reliable sources, then it would be alright to reinstate that information.

Thanks, I've skimmed though a few books myself on grunge, if you reinstate that information, please site your source. I'll have to go check that information out myself, it's certainly interesting RiseRobotRise 05:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Azerrad, Come as You Are: The Story of Nirvana, p 54-55:
"Noting that the Melvins were awarded the princely sum of eighty dollars for a night's work, Chris and Kurt started a Creedence Clearwater Revival cover band aptly named the Sellouts. They figured CCR was country-rock and therefore would go over well in rural Aberdeen. The band was Kurt on drums, Chris on guitar, and a fellow named Steve Newman on bass (Newman later lost his fingers in a woodcutting accident). They practiced at Chris and Shelli's house, but it only got as far as five or six rehearsals. They broke up after Kurt and Newman got into a big fight one day at Chris and Shelli's. They were sitting around drinking when Newman tried to attack Kurt with a vacuum cleaner. Kurt grabbed a two-by-four and brained his much larger opponent."
Google doesn't always have the answer. -- ChrisB 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I've skimmed though a few books myself on grunge, if you reinstate that information, please site your source. I'll have to go check that information out myself, it's certainly interesting RiseRobotRise 05:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Come as You Are is probably the definitive Nirvana bio, as Azerrad spent several months on tour with the band talking to them about their history. Some of it is flawed, given that Cobain and Novoselic admittedly embellished some of their stories, and it's sometimes hard to split the fact from the fiction. But, even in those cases, it's their fiction, not something somebody else invented (which is part of the problem with Charles Cross' Heavier than Heaven). -- ChrisB 06:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -uuuuuuuuu

you are so stupid and bored . ..

[edit] Get a Life

..you remove anything ! And STILL refuse other comments about your conduct

[edit] Adam Carolla

Ok, fine, I just didn't see what purpose removing useful info from Wikipedia served. I don't object to the notion you are putting forth.

[edit] Very Bored ...

1. why did you remove the last message i sent to your "talk - page"?? Don't want to read the truth, i think!!!

2. Attention to 3RR violation! You just reverted the whole document...not only the classification of the links as well the petition links. You must have to change the priorities..and this is my last warning!!

3. Be ware , cause Scrept and you will have an guest account next time!! Can't express my resignation about your way, it really makes many plp sick...

Just noting that I didn't remove it. Two of your reponses were removed by administrators because they amounted to vandalism. -- ChrisB 23:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The Three Revert Rule forbids the use of reverts in repetitive succession. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to respond in kind, and do not make personal attacks.

You have continually breached wiki policy with me, and your rude condescending behaviour and troll like mannerisms have indeed gotten the behaviour you expected out of me. The next time you wholesale rv anything I write which is AGAINST wiki policy as per above you will be reported to a moderator, or 6 of them. Then, after I've reported you to 6 different moderators I will report you for dispute, at which point i will point out your distasteful and vulgar language and behaviour which you have shown all over wikipedia. --Manboobies 07:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, so the best way to avoid a dispute is to leave false information in an article?
You'll notice that I've explained every change I've made at length, which you apparently haven't bothered to read. I have breached exactly ZERO policies. It appears you don't understand the rules you're accusing me of breaching.
Furthermore, you've accused me of blind reversion, but what the hell have you been doing? You added unreliable and unacceptable sources to support your assertions (including bootleg tab sites) and didn't bother to change ANY of the content to address my concerns.
So, you know what? REPORT ME. Report me to as many administrators as you feel the need to. And I mean that without a single ounce of sarcasm. You have flagrantly refused to acknowledge any of my concerns about the content and simply reverted it to your original version. If you report it, I'll have the open opportunity to explain why your content is completely and totally unacceptable as it's written. I do not fear judgement in this regard, and will gladly adhere to their opinion in this matter.
The rules go both ways, and it's high time for you to figure that out. -- ChrisB 08:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Do not blank talk pages

Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. --digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 22:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Genuine apologies. Blanking the discussion page was not my intention. I'm not entirely sure how that happened, but no malice was intended. -- ChrisB 22:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
No problem.--digital_me(Talk)(Contribs) 22:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Jackson

Two reasons -- first off, changing the lead without discussion first is something that -- as is pointed out in the article -- something that will garner reversion; secondly, while you have moved the terms to a later point in the article, that is hardly compromise, especially while there is continuing discussion going on. --Mhking 20:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana

I created that category specifically so I could place Nirvana in it. Yes, they have been classified as post-hardcore. An audio-clip of a news media source from when Nirvana was just beginning to gain popularities labels them clearly as "post-hardcore." This clip can be heard on the video Live! Tonight! Sold Out!!.

Granted, not all of their songs are post-hardcore. However, I find this to be irrelevant.

Sincerely, Allixpeeke 06:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's usually a bad sign for the journalists, but not for the band.
When I did a Google-search on Nirvana and post-hardcore, I found this page which claims Nirvana was hardcore punk. I'm sure Cobain would appreciate the label, but I still think post-hardcore is more accurate, considering their stronger pop-sensibilities.
Do you think the Melvins would be more accurately defined as hardcore punk or post-hardcore?
Allixpeeke 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alice In Chains

Why can't you just keep the announcement article there until May 15th? It can then be edited accordingly when that times arrives. If there's a rule about not reporting news on Wikipedia, I apologize, but it seriously needs to be changed. The news about the announcement is not speculation, though, it is fact; the band did announce this through their newsletter, which cannot be directly linked to. — Oni1 06:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protect

I suggest we protect the article Emo (slang) due to the excessive amounts of vandalism on it. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Electrified mocha chinchilla (talk • contribs) . 22:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar Award

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I award you this Barnstar for your continuous efforts to revert constant vandalism on Emo (slang) --emc! ╬ 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National Emo Kid Beatdown Day

you threw a {{db}} on National Emo Kid Beatdown Day. God of War has attached a {{hangon}} to it. could you head over to the talk page and weigh in? thanks. frymaster 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yacht rock

First of all, don't get me wrong, I AM a fan of the series. Second of all, I thought that my cite requests were pretty self-explanitory. Mainly, I want to see some proof that the creators of the show popularized the term. I'd appreciate if you'd add back in my cite requests for the statements pertaining to that for the time being. --InShaneee 20:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not arguing with you that, I'm fairly certain now that that is the case. However, the fact still remains that there is no proof to back up the statement in the article itself. --InShaneee 00:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Although I'm not entirely involved with this "debate", I'd just like to state that disagreeing with ChrisB could be a deadly mistake. It's written in the book "Crossroads" that he is all-knowing in regards to music. I pray for your soul, InShaneee. --emc! ╬ 06:03, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re: Template:Infobox musical artist 2

For a group act that is no longer active, all members are to be listed in the "past members" field, reguardless of who was in the group when the group broke up. If it is desired to show the various lineups of the group, do such in a section of the article body, or create a subarticle such as Temptations chronology. Thank you. --FuriousFreddy 14:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Foo Fighters - Learn to Fly

You claim it to be a misprint, but that is original research. Show a source or contact billboard to figure this out. All sources state that it reached #13 and this is your word that it is a misprint against verifiable proof. Until you can prove that this is a mistake, please refrain from changing it. You have already changed it 4 times, which should lead to your temporary ban, so please do not edit it again. I myself have edited it once, so I will change it back. Contact billboard or actually link the charts online. Elsewise, it is original research and the provable numbers shall stay. Bsd987 02:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration of the week

Hey, we've set up at collaboration project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Music/COTW. Feel free to suggest or vote on articles to work on. WesleyDodds 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] R.E.M

Will I put information that I am not perfectly aware of? Will I? No, I will not! I have 3 albums of R.E.M. - Out of Time, Automatic for the People and New Adventures in Hi-Fi. There, Berry apart from drumming work is credited for bass guitar, synthesizer, keyboards, acoustic guitar, ennio whistle and a couple of other percussions. So, if you revert me once more, I'm reporting you. :) Painbearer 00:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Point taken about the wizard words, but I was particularly right about Berry's contributions. In fact I think that the reason for New Adventures in Hi-Fi such a brilliant record is the even bigger input of Berry. Otherwise, I was just mad for seeing stuff that I believed was right was reverted again and again. Sorry for my outburst. Yet, I wouldn't define "it should be noted" as a weasle, beacuse it express and outlines (in cases where the writer know what he is talking about) a proven fact. I think that much of the bulk of the other weasels do not. About their usage I do agree and I do support. But considering a fact that the writer can verify his information... yeah, why not use it? Painbearer 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:Mattgood.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattgood.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images 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. Yamla 16:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Infobox musical artist

I've listed the template talk page at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, art and literature, to bring more eyes to the table. I would also ask that, even if you don't agree with the creators of the template (I'm not even the original creator, I'm just a clean-up guy), you at least try to understand the methodology (and be civil while doing so). --FuriousFreddy 16:34, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chris b calls truth vandalism

To the person who changed my "contribution" about "emo" (slang) First of you cannot call something vandalism when it is true in 99.5% of the fuckain cases. Also if you don't think it is "politically correct" or for that matter factual at least correct it as I do don't report shit, if everyone who lied or posted "misleading info" got reported everyone would be banned from this site.

And second of all you cannot say that my comment was racist. When I say "rich white-kid" I don't necesarily refer to "white" people, but rather to "caucasian so-called Americans" who are rich. Finnaly I don't get why when I add something to an article some fagot cleans it up in 14 minutes but when (on a different ocassion) I posted a comment that many people don't agree with it also got "cleaned-up" as in this case, however no one cleaned up the comment that some fuckain KKK-scumbag left for me that he/she actually typed into the comment section were he reported me to wikipedia were he stated "You are a fuckain Nigger [even though I'm not] stop posting bullshit comments" So some bullshit nazi is allowed to ridicule me in a message that the wikipedia people probably read yet i can't ridicule fagot emo-kids. If their so goddamm depressed go take a paxil or some shit and quit trying to be "cool" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Television05 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 3 July 2006.

[edit] "Learn to Fly" debate

I really don't know what to do about the guy in this debate who doesn't seem to grasp the basic principles of source citation. I'm trying not to get into a revert war over this, but it's really hard to take him seriously since he seems to cause a lot of other trouble. If this keeps up, we might have to bring an administrator into this. Let's both try and keep calm about this, though. WesleyDodds 07:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with bringing an administrator in for I am correct according to billboard.It IS NOT my responsibility to look it up myself since it is not my claim.Bring in administrator Period.-CAYA

[edit] CAYA

I blocked User:CAYA indef, obvious troll, all he does is blank warnings, create socks and revert war. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VICTORY!!!!

Hey I saw you FINALLY got CAYA blocked.Thank god all that bullshit is over.Let's just hope he was joking about the sockpuppets.

[edit] SOCKPUPPET?

could you please stop accusing me of being a sockpuppet for USER:CAYA this is my first user name on wikipedia and I don't know why your accusing me of this I've never even spoken to USER:CAYA

[edit] Regulating the Emo talkpage

Perhaps we should add {{not a forum}} to the talkpage of Emo (slang). Looking at the archives, this page is riddled with irrelevant comments made by anons and new/younger users. What do you think?--The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 22:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Green Day

I'd like to ask your help with Green Day. Countless edits are made everyday to this page, arguments continue over the band's genre and point of origin, and even cited material is being changed. On a related note there is currently discussion about the split of the pop punk page into Pop punk and Pop punk revival. I trust your ability to maintain the integrety of sources and evaluate the contributions of others, so any help you can offer would be appreciated. WesleyDodds 07:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why not?

Why can't we keep the comment my way?CAYA is long gone and even if he does come back it's vandalism.It looks extremely retarded.I have the issue in my attic right now it says #19.

[edit] Your Right

Oh Ok I see where your getting at.-User:SOADLuver

[edit] DFG

Chris, I have an email from Billy Moses, confirming Josh Gardner is Deaf Frat Guy, that has to count as a source, right? I have no idea how to cite that within Wikipedia however. This is in talking about The Adam Carolla Show --MikeDawg 13:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)




[edit] nirvana site thing

um good comprimise, hit me up on AIM sometime my s/n is hivthegiftyougiv -tourettes1992

[edit] Kurt Cobain, R.E.M.

Two things:

  • 1. Kurt Cobain seems stuck at Good Article status. Given the amount of info available on him, there's no reason it couldn't be made into a featured article (like the Nirvana article). Is there anything you think needs to be added to the article, or things that need to be verified?
  • 2. I recently bought R.E.M.'s Fiction: An Alternative Biography, published around 2003 and pretty close to an offical bio, featuring extensive info culled from Peter Buck and Mike Mills, who agreed to be interviewed for the book. Let me know what you want added/verfied for the article, and I can look it up. WesleyDodds 01:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Editor's Barnstar
Been watching your edits for a while.You've done a very good at deleting nonsense.good job SOADLuver 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TBP Deletion Review

[edit] Theta Beta Potata

This article was first started by me and was deleted back in May '06. I was reading the punk house article and saw that the link for the TBP article was no longer red so I clicked on it and there was an article back up, started by another user. I dont know who started it because, it was deleted soon after I saw it. The decision made in the "Article for Deletion" debate should be reconsidered. The article is about a punk house not a fratenal organization. It seems that the debate, run by User:ChrisB and results were reported by User:Mailer Diablo. I will post this on their talk pages. This is the first time I have requested a deletion review so please let me know what else I need to do. If there is anything. I am on wikipedia frequently and I want to learn. Thanks. Xsxex 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Chris, where do we go with this now? let me know, i'd like to be kept in the loop, if there is a loop, and if there's not a loop, than we can make a loop, ya know what i mean? ok. thanx. Xsxex 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interlanguage links

See Wikipedia:Interlanguage links for why Japanese is alphabetized "nihongo" even in the English wiki. (If you want to alphabetize by the English names of the languages, other changes will need to be made -- Hebrew is out of order, for instance.) -- JHunterJ 02:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain and peer review

What do you think of submitting Kurt Cobain to Peer Review to see what else needs to be done to get the article to Featured status? Or do you have some definite ideas on what needs to be done? WesleyDodds 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Your comments on emo

Ok, so this may have been a while ago, but to refresh your memory, you called this section biased:

"Sexuality Criticisms of emo, often laced with anti-gay slogans and terms like "emo fag," have become common. There are many likely reasons for this, one being that the popularity of emo fashion is largely linked to metrosexuality; followers of emo fashion display clothing and style stereotypically linked to gay culture; their style also leans towards an androgynous look, e.g. boys wearing makeup, having no facial hair, and wearing clothes that accentuate a slim build.

Another reason is that many "emo girls" display a strong attraction towards gay or bisexual male activities. Though it is common in Western culture for men to find lesbianism erotic, females finding homo- or bi-sexuality erotic receive less mainstream attention but are common in many specialized interest groups including the emo sub-culture. Pages collecting pictures of emo boys making out have been created on internet sites such as MySpace (see example at Emo Boys Who Kiss). This can be linked back to the fact that the emo "look" perpetuates andgrogyny. Emo boys are more naturally predisposed to kiss other boys who look slightly feminine. This male homoerotica is viewed far less liberally than female homo-erotic experimentation in Western culture, and therefore has created many strong anti-emo feelings amongst "retrosexuals". Female homoeroticism also exists within the emo subculture, as evidenced by Emo Girls Who Kiss."

Now i agree that the sexism section was v. one-sided. However, i think that the sexuality section is an accurate representation. Admittedly the wording of "Emo boys are more naturally predisposed to kiss other boys who look slightly feminine" should be changed, but apart from that it is a very good piece of work. Would you not agree? --Leowatkins 19:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Smells Like Teen Spirit

In the past few days I've heavily reworked "Smells Like Teen Spirit"; I was tired of the page looking like crap. You might want to take a look at it and add anything else you feel is necessary before I submit it as a GA candidate. WesleyDodds 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In regards to Kurt Cobain, I say we cite his bio first (I don't own Heavier Than Heaven unfortunately, but I do have Come As You Are and access to tons of articles) and then put it up to peer review. The suicide dispute is obviously a big piece of contention among fans, but a peer review will allow us to subject the article to people who haven't even necessarily heard of Coabin and are mainly looking at "Is this a balanced article?" I think a fresh perspective like that can elevate it form an inclusive perspective and help us figure out how we might be able to improve it. WesleyDodds 05:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Adam Carolla Show

Hey, thanks a lot for the help in dealing with the sources guy. I'm not really that familiar with all of Wiki's guidlines, and mainly just go on my own background as a TA and journalism major when it comes to verifiable sources.

Also, do you have any idea of how to go about a ban for the guy / girl who keeps removing the Webmaster Billy part? It could be someone from the show, judging by past edits to the page, but they refuse to use the Talk page. SGreenwell 17:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Cobain's Last Days

I wanted to ask you if you would reconsider putting my edit back into the article. I realize that putting in an additional paragraph might be too much, but putting in a simple subhead of "cobain's last days" would help ease reader navigation without changing any text whatsoever.

I believe it a fair compromise, because you make a good point that it is a separate matter on another page. However, I do not believe that your link to that page is sufficient, in that it is buried within the text of the paragraph, and is not noticeable at first glance.

I want to ask you to err on the side of perceived usefulness rather than err on the side of perceived uselessness. It's a fair deal, and it allows for a highlight of an alternative point of view rather than a concession of "oh, yeah. that. it exists, i guess."

Illharmonics00 18:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

We here beg to differ. Not notable? Wrong. And, it is a FACT, sourced and referenced. Please do not revert sourced, referenced material. Take it to a discussion page, as per wiki. What you are doing is called vandalism. And I don't like that.

The funny thing about this is that it is a fact. The weenie thought he could use Chaos Magick to re-incarnate into that little brat. I know. I was there. Very funny, no? And it will end up here, regardless of your silly, narrow vandalism, eventually.

I got all the time in the world.

[edit] Image:Grohl.jpg

I've uploaded a freely usable image which I believe makes your upload obsolete for its intended purpose (illustrating what Grohl looks like), and it will be deleted in 7 days if not disputed. — CharlotteWebb 00:11, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You Love To Fix Culling

Fix this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Cure_For_Cancer#Accusations_of_Plagiarism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denis_Leary#Accusations_of_plagiarism 24.141.158.0 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jimmy Eat World

You reverted my additions to the Next Album section. I can tell you the four songs I put down that were played live are reliable sources, Jim Adkins said so at the show I went to, and the names are correct also, I crosschecked with the set list. I admit that the Chase This Light as the album name didn't come from a reliable source though.

66.159.193.19 09:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

On a different note for Jimmy Eat World: So no classic rock is considered classic rock? It HAS to be rock, and can never be called classic rock, as they never classified themselves as classic rock when their songs were new? Things change, I have seen Early Emo classification before. I will not change it back, if others agree an Early Emo category will be started someday.--WhereAmI 03:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought about it some more, and why not both? After all, classic rock bands are also classified as rock bands--WhereAmI 04:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Best Group 1999, Best Album 1999

I'm looking at my Junos, and that's what's engraved on them. They may indeed have handed them out in 2000, but the awards relate to the previous year. If you have another suggestions for changes to mine or any page where my name appears, perhaps you'd like to discuss them via email. Unfortunately this means you'll have to come out from behind your veil of anonymity and register an email address.


-Ian Browne —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ibrowne (talk • contribs) 08:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Alternative rock articles importance ranking

Hey, we've implemented a ranking system for the Alternative music Wikiproject (Top, high, mid, and low importance). You might want to drop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative music to discuss the application of rankings to articles on the talk page. WesleyDodds 22:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kurt Cobain Forbes ranking

I wrote the paragraph about the Forbes top dollar earning dead celebrity list back in October, and at the time I argued long and hard to keep it in there. While I still think it is worth noting, perhaps the first sentance should be revised to read, "In October 2006, Cobain was ranked by Forbes Magazine as the top dollar-earning dead celebrity, earning an estimated $50 million from October 2005 to October 2006." As it stands, the sentance is a little misleading since the event, while significant to his fans, wasn't much more than a passing headline on a slow news day as far as the mainstream media is concerned. What do you think? --Atomicskier 00:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your recent edits to the Courtney Love page

Whatever your beef with mistertruffles, way to make it kurt fans vs courtney fans. That's really going to help both pages.

I'm not going to RV your edits, because they make that ridiculous paragraph shorter, but by your own logic, maybe you should. If people's relationships to KC and opinions on whether he was suicidal or not are relevant on the KC page, then perhaps they're relevant here. This has really swayed me towards feeling I'd rather all of this nonsense was taken to a separate page, where perhaps it may stop provoking you and others into childish shows of force on the pages of two reasonably interesting and influential artists. White hotel 12:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I genuinely do not appreciate your characterization. If it was ever "kurt fans vs courtney fans", it was certainly the case before I made those edits. I had not even read the paragraph in Love's article until just before I made those edits - it was not in the article the last time I read it.
I did not remove those statements because I disagreed them or as a "show of force" - I removed them because they specifically fail Wikipedia's three main guidelines: WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR
The absence of family members questioning suicide cannot be used as proof that he committed suicide. It's a drawn conclusion based on non-existent statements. We cannot assume any position that Cobain's family takes without their specific statements (or a reliable source compiling them). Most of Cobain's direct family are not on record saying anything about his death. That doesn't mean that they think he committed suicide or that he was murdered. (Without a source, we can't even prove that they've ever been asked for their opinion.)
The statement about Harrison and Grant never having met Cobain is also unsourced and irrelevant. If someone had to meet a victim in order to believe that they were murdered, police officers would have a very difficult time doing their jobs. If Harrison and Grant's character needs to be challenged, it should be done using citeable statements from verifiable sources, not on the grounds that they never met Cobain.
What was there did not conform to Wikipedia guidelines. That's the only position I was taking. -- ChrisB 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe you. It seems obvious to me that you went to the Courtney page as a response to mistertruffles' criticism of the conspiracy part of the KC page. You've done that repeatedly. If you've done so because it frustrates you that two pages referring to the same conspiracy are so different, I can see that that's reasonable, and again I think that it points clearly to a separate page where the differences can be resolved, since the two pages don't seem able to agree what (in content, in tone, and in intention) constitutes NPOV on this one.
As for 'the absence of family members questioning suicide cannot be used as proof that he committed suicide' - it has never read as any kind of gesture at 'proof' to me. The conspiracy theory as a whole is there because it's notable - because many people believe it or don't. Speculating as to KC's family's beliefs is OR; stating that they've never challenged the official verdict is reasonable.
'If Harrison and Grant's character needs to be challenged, it should be done using citeable statements from verifiable sources, not on the grounds that they never met Cobain.' Right - because the Kim Gordon quote is thrown in on the KC page just as an aside. White hotel 13:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Foo Fighters

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, ChrisB! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bvids\.myspace\.com\b, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nirvana

There is more than one band named Nirvana, Nirvana from American and The UK band). Feel free to discuss this, but I beleive this change would most defiently satisfy our guidelines on disambiguation. Nirvana (band) is anything should be a disamb. for the two bands or a redirect. — Moe 06:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Discuss this on the talk page and move it appropriatly after consensus is formed once again. But you can't deny the fact that there is two Nirvana's and this disambiguation is nessecary. One can't be Nirvana (band) and the other one be Nirvana (UK band) and expect disambiguation to be the best it can be. The UK band could in theory take the same title as Nirvana the Washington band and it still would have been correct. Disambiguation is meant to be clear enough so viewers (not editors) of this site can easily navigate it without confusion (not the only reason for DAB though). I'm going off-line now. — Moe 07:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about the last change on emo, I compared the wrong versions, your current one does seem to be OK--Josquius 18:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/r/User_talk%7EChrisB_74d2.html"