User talk:Chris77xyz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rob's House Records

Thank you for your input, but I am the author of the initial article about Rob's House Records, and I am not affiliated with the label. I am, however, very active in the Atlanta music scene. I am sorry if you feel the article has to many actual facts about the subject, but I happen to be very knowledgeable about the subject, and I believe this does not make the article not worthy of Wikipedia. It also adheres to the NPOV, as well as containing citing information about the name of the label (which is a bulk of the information on the page). Plus, you removed a bulk of the information, including why the label is important. I plan on undoing a substantial amount of the changes to the article. --AtlantaMusic

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Unwound_ASingleHistory.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Unwound_ASingleHistory.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlinking of dates, Calvin and Hobbes

Hi - I see you've done some tidying of this article. All makes good sense apart from the date unlinking. By linking the date, it allows user preferences to work. See WP:DATES#Dates_containing_a_month_and_a_day for more details, hope you can agree it's a good idea to link 'em. Cheers, --Oscarthecat 19:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Land of Confusion

I understand the Disturbed section of the article was a bit much, but you took out too much. I replaced some of your edits, including the single infobox and the chart information. At some point perhaps a description of the video can be put in, but don't overreact and delete almost every reference to Disturbed from the article; their cover version is more notable than most. Anthony Hit me up... 13:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. The original "Land Of Confusion" song/video were in existence for 2 decades before Disturbed decided to cover it. Adding such an overwhelming amount of info on Disturbed's cover version distorted readers' analysis of the original song/video. (For what it's worth, I personally don't even care for Genesis at all, nor do I have any special fondness for this song/ video, though the video's puppetry was fairly innovative in its day.) But I & others felt the article was being pillaged by Disturbed fans, and thus Wikipedia was being compromised in the process. The article is much more fairly balanced now, and gives appropriate coverage to Disturbed's version. So I have no regrets about how I edited it, nor do I have a problem with what you added back, since I think you added back a judicious amount... though the huge Infobox is pushing things a bit. (I only made that one edit to the article & had forgotten all about it until just now.) As user Robotman1974 posted back on Jan. 16th, "Right now the word counts of the main parts of the Genesis version vs the Disturbed version are 775 to 996 respectively." So you see, the word count (showing clear bias in favor of Disturbed's version over the original version) is what motivated my pruning. I do welcome your further thoughts on this, though, since I realize Disturbed probably spent a lot of time and money on making that video, & they are a bit more highbrow than most "nu-metal" bands of today. And I agree with you that their cover version is more notable than most, since theirs did very well on the charts (though I never even knew theirs existed until I stumbled onto this article). The only recourse that would make both sides happy is to make an entire new article devoted to Disturbed's version. I would be in favor of that; this would allow you to add back all the info I deleted initially.

Best, and good luck in the governor's race,

Chris77xyz 06:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Six Finger Satellite

Hi -- thanks for your improvements to this article. A nit-picking query; you've listed "Clone Theory" as a 12" & CDEP; but as far as I know it was only released on vinyl (cf. here). Am I missing something? --Javits2000 17:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I just went by this: [1], but AMG can't always be trusted. Maybe it came out on CD and cassette as white-label promos or something. -CPR

[edit] Destination: Love

Good work on the Destination: Love page. I've heard that the album was a faked live album, but I wasn't ever able to find any information on it. Along that note, if you did find that info online, could you reference it in the article? Thanks, and keep up the good work! Drewcifer3000 19:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi. It's just always kind of been common knowledge that this was a fake live album; e.g., the band has dropped hints about it in interviews, etc. I don't really have any way of proving it. But if you listen closely to the album, you can indeed hear loops of "audience noise" being repeated at set intervals. Chris77xyz 05:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is pretty obvious, but a citation would be nice. But I've had trouble finding a source for it as well. I guess just keep your eyes open, and keep up the good work. Drewcifer3000 10:30, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] American Don

Thank you for cleaning up and removing bias from the American Don article. I've gone ahead and reverted a couple of the changes you made:

  • Although this fact wasn't publicized upon the album's initial release, Damon Che IS the only original member of Don Caballero to play on this album.
  • In the CD liner notes Williams and Emm are credited with "guitars" and "basses" respectively - pluralized because of the looping and multiple overdubs employed during the recording process - a subtle yet important distinction.

It's pedantic, I know, but that's what Wiki's all about, right? Dalyzach 22:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

    • Hi. 1.) I must've mistakenly thought Ian was an original member b/c he's always viewed as the band's definitive axeman... 2.) Yeah, I almost bought an Akai Headrush looper a few years ago because of its notorious role in Don Cab's one-guitarist recordings. I settled on a Boss Loop Station instead, rather than a Headrush or Boomerang, due to those two's reliability & price issues, respectively. Check out Hovercraft, Southpacific, & Auburn Lull if you're into this kind of hallucinitory guitar looping. I thought Don Cab's new lineup was incredible when I saw them in '04, but I skipped their "classic" lineup in '98, so I can't compare the two performance-wise. Best, Chris77xyz 06:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Butthole Surfers

Hi there. No offense intended, but I reverted the majority of the extensive changes you made to the Butthole Surfers page, almost all of which was written & sourced by yours truly. See, the article is undergoing Peer Review. Two experienced Wiki users with a number of GA and higher articles to their credits have been over it, and neither suggested any of the changes you made. Plus -- and again, no personal offense to you intended -- I felt that most of the changes degraded the article, rather than improve it. (I did keep some of your changes though, and revised part of the "Live Performance" section and it's corresponding sentence in the main body so as to avoid a total redux there.)

A more detailed list of "revision reasons" has been posted to the article's Discussion page if you want to see them. And while it's still up for review, I respectfully ask that you post plans/requests/reasons for any additional massive changes to the Discussion page before making them, mostly so a potential reviewer doesn't read a wildly different version of the article than what I submitted. Thanks! Thehaikumaster 17:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hard rock

Hey there, great work cleaning up the hard rock article. A few things though:

  • There is no need to place individual {{fact}} tags in the text when the entire article has been tagged with an {{unreferenced}} tag.
  • Try to make your writing a little bit more encyclopedic. For example:
"by 1992 a new form of hard rock, christened grunge, emerged."
should be:
"by 1992 a new form of hard rock, known as grunge, emerged."
  • Such sweeping changes should generally be discussed on the article's talk page. But this wasn't such a big deal as the majority of the stuff you removed was original research.

Like I said, good job though. Just keep in mind these points for future edits - cheers! ĤĶ51→Łalk 17:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Living people categories

Hi, Please don't remove Living people categories as you did to Šarūnas Marčiulionis here. thanks, bye--Downwards 21:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked for personal attacks, gross incivility, borderline legal threats

Posts like this one are patently unacceptable conduct on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative editing environment; as such, it has been necessary to impose a few ground rules.

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 24 hours. Please take this time to review the following policies:

While there are certainly legitimate questions about the quality, relevance, and appropriateness of the images to the article on Tara Subkoff, the way that you have chosen to approach the matter is...not optimal. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for guidance on more productive approaches. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits made to Hovercraft (band)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Chris77xyz! 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 \bangelfire\.com\/, 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 03:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hmm. All I know is that another user (Blue Tie) quickly reverted from your edit back to mine, before I even knew your bot had "smacked" my edit down. I didn't know that sites in a certain domain (Angelfire.com) were prohibited, or that they qualify as spam links; but now I see that Angelfire is on the banned list, so I thank you for pointing that out. But can you explain to me why the Angelfire link was removed that one time, yet remains on there after the other user added it back? It seems that your bot would remove it each and every time, or does it only work one time? It seems like a pretty inefficient bot if it "gives up" that quickly. Perhaps you could elucidate... Or you could just reprogram the bot to be more ruthless, if that'd benefit Wikipedia in the long run.

Thanks, Chris77xyz 05:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Hooknose. It is considered vandalism, which under Wikipedia policy, can lead to blocking of editing privileges. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Diff here. Sandstein 06:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, the creator of the former Hooknose article agreed with my rationale and he personally merged it with the Human nose article, as I had suggested. It got trimmed down to one or two sentences, as I had also recommended, which is an agreeable compromise for a slang term which does have mild prominence in everyday discussions of human probosci.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hooknose

and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hooknose&action=history

You telling me to use the Sandbox and vandalizing my Talk page by putting a garish "Warning" icon is totally uncalled for. I have never added "nonsense" to any Wikipedia article. If you try to slander me again I will have to report you.

If for some reason you decide to revive the Hooknose article, which seems to have been oddly close to your heart, keep in mind that you would be creating a slang article. You would thus be in violation of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_a_dictionary, which lays out one of Wikipedia's key tenets: "Wikipedia is not a dictionary, or a slang, jargon, or usage guide." Your vigorous defense of the Hooknose article displayed a striking unawareness of this basic tenet. Perhaps you care to explain?

Looking forward to your response. Best,

Chris77xyz 04:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Call for cooperation

Hi there, Chris! I've been following your Wiki career since your massive (and rejected) changes to my Butthole Surfers article a few weeks back. Sorry to be judgmental, and no personal disrespect intended, but maybe you could learn to work with other Wiki editors, instead of constantly fighting them? I mean, if this talk page is any indication you seem to be bent on annoying as many fellow editors & administrators as possible.

I could understand your insistence on "lone wolf" editing and massive changes to other people's work if you were an official administrator, but you're a regular editor just like the rest of us. Even more disturbing is the way you try to instill your own version of morality, re: the constant attacks on the Tara Subkoff article -- something that only you, out of all the Wiki editors & administrators, seem to have a problem with.

In other words... if everyone else is turning against you, maybe, just maybe, you should start looking inward for the true source of the problem instead of assuming the rest of us are causing it?

Anyways, just some unsolicited advice for you. Of course unsolicited advice is rarely welcome and even more rarely acted upon, but there it is. Good wiki-ing! The Haiku Master 18:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tara Subkoff

Hi. Since your reverts to Tara Subkoff are of a personal nature, and you have very few edits, but much evidence of a contentious nature (see the Subkoff talk page, for which you were blocked, and the long list of complaints above for various topics and reasons) if you remove the gallery another time then I will request you be blocked from editing the page. I'm sorry you have a problem with the gallery, but your edits are disruptive; I suggest you use your time more productively and "move on." This is a good faith attempt to ask you to stop vandalizing the page, which I will point to in any request to prevent you to stop your personal crusade (which you admitted to on the Tara Subkoff talk page). Enjoy Wikipedia! --David Shankbone 04:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I second this, and will add that your personal attacks on that page are beyond the limits of free speech on Wikipedia. If you engage in this kind of attack again I will do my best to have you blocked from editing here. Cheers, Jeffpw 10:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rake

Thanks for jumping in on the Rake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rake_%28band%29) article. I can use all the help I can get. One item: I tried uploading images of the various Rake album covers, but they deleted. Got any quick tips on doing this? PS -- I have Vinnie Van Go Go's and Bill Kellum's blessings on this. Malco23 14:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Make-Up articles

As one of the few editors whose contributed to The Make-Up-related articles, I thought you might like to know that The Make-Up and The Make-Up discography are both Featured Article/Featured list candidates. The nom pages can be found here and here. I'm having some difficulties getting people to look at the articles and give suggestions/vote, so I thought I'd bring it to your attention. If you could spend a few minutes to look them over and perhaps give a vote one way or the other I'd appreciate it. Thanks! Drewcifer 00:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)