User talk:FMSky/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

WP:HUFFPOCON

Just an FYI also that WP:HUFFPOCON also applies only to articles from 2018 or earlier. It's not a relevant policy for a 2024 article due to the restructuring of Huffington Post in 2018. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Date format

Please note that the correct date format is Month day comma year.Luganchanka (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Luganchanka: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rumble_(company)&diff=prev&oldid=1259129106 these edits are incorrect. The format is either March 25, 2024 (US) or 25 March 2024 (everywhere else) --FMSky (talk) 15:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is regarding the Tupac page

Hi @FMSkyI see that you recently edited the Tupac page but your edits were reverted by some users who are clearly spreading puffery. There seems to be a clear issue of puffery on that page, which I see you have opposed. I would love you to contribute to the TalkPage under the section “Academic views”. I have recently written: “Looking at the history, there was no discussion or consensus about academics being mentioned both in the first paragraph and the fourth. I believe it can be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, but not in the first, because it’s not that notable, and it’s already covered in the second sentence which covers his influence. I’m against puffery. Other users have already shown opposition to this puffery regarding the topic of academics such as @FMSkyand @JustAnotherCompanion”. RapForever863 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Progressive death metal->Technical death metal

Hello! I noticed you switched the redirect for Progressive death metal from Technical death metal back to progressive metal, saying they are not the same after I said they were. I was wondering why that is the case. If you look at the edit history for Progressive death metal back when it had an infobox, the infobox for it is literally the same one used in Technical death metal, except Avant-garde metal is replaced with progressive rock, and the source for jazz fusion is removed. As far as I can tell, both progressive and technical death metal are basically the same with no apparent differences. If you know the differences, please do list the sources that describe them, otherwise, I see no reason that progressive death metal can't redirect to technical death metal. Moline1 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, do you have any sources confirming that they are synonyms? Just googling "progressive death metal vs technical death metal" suggests they are different, see for example here https://loudwire.com/differences-technical-progressive-metal/ --FMSky (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This Reddit thread also talks about their differences: https://www.reddit.com/r/TechnicalDeathMetal/comments/7cunav/prog_vs_tech/

Between Loudwire and Reddit, I see now that they are, in fact, different. Thank you for providing that Loudwire source! Moline1 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor image

Hi FMSky, I wanted to hear your reasoning for categorizing the previous image as "the worst infobox photo of all time" as that is quite a harsh description. The image has a clear resolution, good lighting, and most importantly, is reflective of how Trainor looks right now. Looking at any video of Trainor recently (example), she does not look as chubby as she does in the one you have replaced it with. All of the promotional material related to her recent music and tour has a blue theme as well. There are a few options in this category that we can work with, and there is also this one, which does not have an awkward half-illumination. Thoughts on the other ones?--NØ 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are we talking about this image?

File:Meghan Trainor Vogue Butterfly 2.png

--FMSky (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This might work imo

• 

--FMSky (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This was the image previously in the article before the revert.

File:Meghan Trainor Vogue Butterfly (cropped).png

These might be good options from the Vogue video (the other images can be seen in the category).

File:Meghan Trainor Vogue Butterfly 2.png

• File:Meghan Trainor for Vogue in 2019 (cropped).png

Although, if you think all shots from the Vogue video are poor, I much prefer this one to the one currently used.--NØ 17:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That one is good too, but yeah the Vogue ones arent great --FMSky (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This discussion has nothing to do with me of course but I found this discussion from the image files used in it and honestly the Vogue video ones aren't horrible but it's better to have a full face picture. I actually really like the microphone one as it is one of the only good screenshots from the video, if you had brought this to the talk page you would've been told the same and I was gonna use it but it seems you two already agreed on a different picture which is also okay. This0k (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Russell Brand Sexual misconduct allegations

Hello, you recently deleted an edit of mine on the Russell Brand page regarding his Sexual misconduct allegations. The edit was factual and included a news source. I'm going to restore the edit unless I get a valid reason to why it was deleted?

It was in regards to multiple right-wing celebrities having come out to defend Brand's accusations of sexual assault including Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Mark Collett and Ian Miles Cheong.

Many of the celebrities who have come out to defend Russell Brand have also been accused of sexual assault, they are all just as bad as each other. Stellar master elite (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as stated twice in edit summaries, the reasoning is WP:Vice, which is not considered a reliable source. And your last comment also doesn't suggest you're here to address this issue from a neutral perspective

More puffery on the Tupac page

Hi, something needs to be done on the Tupac page as the childish puffery is still going on. RapForever863 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that this version of the lead has too much puffery, maybe a WP:3O or WP:RFC makes sense. User Pier1999 is problematic anyway and seems to only have edited this one article since registering past March. --FMSky (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. The puffery was too much. Also, @HumanRightsIsCool is also responsible for a lot of this, as he/she often reinstates Pier1999’s edits. RapForever863 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction @HumansRightsIsCool RapForever863 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

On a deletion you made to my edit

On the page for Nancy Mace, I saw that you deleted my edit regarding her X post and it getting blocked, citing WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. I'm a noob at Wikipedia stuff, so why did you delete my edit for those two specific reasons? I didn't think it fell under original research, since I simply paraphrased an article from The Hill. As for NOTNEWS, I don't think it falls under that due to one big thing. X never moderates their platform, so it's honestly pretty insane that they actually did something. Also, it is relevant (in my opinion) because Mace took the fight to social media and got immediately humiliated by an AI moderator. Maybe I'm just biased, but it was pretty funny to see her finally get what she had coming. ApteryxRainWing🐉 | Roar with me!!! | My contributions 12:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It's just standard social media drama that happens every day, I don't think it's that notable, especially since the section is already pretty long. Her post was also just "limited" not removed entirely.

Tupac page

Hi @FMSky, more puffery is going on on the Tupac page. Both my and your edits have been reverted in favour of puffery. Something needs to be done RapForever863 (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @RapForever863: You can request page protection here - FlightTime (open channel) 20:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @FlightTime, I would like to remove all the puffery first, but I will need consensus. @FMSky already agrees with me that the lead has too much puffery. How can we move forward with this? RapForever863 (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Hi, not sure why you reverted again as your concern was addressed with a reliable source in support of the text. PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Will assume good faith that you simply did not see the reliable source in support of the text. --PoliticalPoint (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

808s & Heartbreak

Hi FMSky,

I see that you’re an experienced editor on here and like to add sources to genres to make sure that they are correct, however on 808s & Heartbreak the genres are wrong, they say that the album is an electropop, art pop and synth-pop album, synthpop is not sourced, can you please change the infobox to say:

• Electropop
• art pop
• hip hop
• R&B as they all explicitly call the album those genres? Many thanks85.106.182.246 (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reed Mullin.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Reed Mullin.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

A note of caution re IP edits

Please be careful about dismissing and reverting IP edits, like here on Nintendo Badge Arcade. I can't find anything wrong with the end state the IP had because it was significantly improving the quality of writing (eg moving away from using "you", proseline, etc.) — Masem (t) 13:01, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

My main issue was that they were removing dates for no reason, actually I saw them doing that in a number of articles

The dates were being replaced with month-year dating, which most of the time is better for summarizing articles. Rarely are exact dates needed for video game articles outside the release dates. --Masem (t) 17:19, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Media Matters and Brett Cooper

I attributed what I wrote to Media Matters and made it clear it was their opinion. Does that not count as being unbiased when I put their words in quotation marks? JPHC2003 (talk) 03:39, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

It does but if there's no other source talking about it other than Media Matters its doubtful if this story is even WP:DUE --FMSky (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Hmm...

What are you exactly doing here, despite removing reliable sources that I put at an A7X song? Idinahui660 (talk) 01:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

We wish you a Merry Christmas,

And a Happy New Year!

May your holidays be filled with peace and joy. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.

Thedarkknightli (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Paul Steed (video game artist).webp

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Paul Steed (video game artist).webp. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Edits

You gave no reason or indication on why you reverted those edits. It is the same person and I updated a pic from last year. Meep Meep 14:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Which edit are you talking about? --FMSky (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Fred Willard in NPRmageddon Podcast

Hi FMSky, I noticed you've contributed edits to the Fred Willard Wikipedia entry, and I was wondering if you'd be able to add that he was a cast member of the podcast NPRmageddon in 2023. Here’s a citation you can use: https://laist.com/news/los-angeles-activities/why-the-creators-of-nprmageddons-dystopian-lost-angeles-see-reporters-as-heroic?utm_source=chatgpt.com Thank you for considering this addition! Lungthief4444 (talk) 21:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Danny Elfman

Not sure why you deleted a very serious section about allegations of sexual harassment against a musician by alleging that it is "political." I could see a less careful editor accusing you of being paid to erase it or something similar. I especially dislike your failure to add alternate sources that could have been sufficient. wizzito | say hello! 10:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the Rolling Stone sources in that article are under their "music" section and not their "politics" section. It wasn't very careful of you to remove that section. wizzito | say hello! 10:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Per WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS "there is unanimous consensus among editors that Rolling Stone is generally unreliable for politically and societally sensitive issues reported since 2011" --FMSky (talk) 15:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a COI with Elfman? This kind of behavior is what gets normies on Twitter to think you are erasing it on behalf of him. wizzito | say hello! 05:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't even know who this person is. I edit random articles all the time and saw the problematic rolling stone refFMSky (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for alleging you had a COI. I was just very upset. wizzito | say hello! 00:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

np --FMSky (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about "Label" or "distributor"

Hi. The discussion remains no further comment since last year. If you're interested, feel free to give your input, as well as Simplifying "Release history" tables discussion. 2001:D08:2918:35D:181B:7455:DEAC:4D9B (talk) 10:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump image issue

For me, at least, the image you updated on 17 Jan no longer displays at Donald Trump#Political practice and rhetoric. Are you seeing the same thing? ―Mandruss ☎ 06:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

This image? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Donald_Trump_supporters_(48555431171).jpg It works normally for me. Maybe try clearing your browser cache --FMSky (talk) 06:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tried that, twice, no joy. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

The image "box" is present with what looks like a normal size. It's blank except for a little icon in the upper left corner that looks like a piece of paper torn in half. No idea what that's supposed to indicate. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've reverted the image to an earlier version on Wiki Commons, does it work now? --FMSky (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

No, even after clearing cache again. Lol. Guess you're off the hook. Oh well, I was tired of looking at those MAGA hats anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

thats pretty weird but it seems it wasnt the crop then. have no idea what the problem could be then FMSky (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Right. But sometimes these things just fix themselves without explanation. For example, I haven't tried restarting my computer yet, and it could be a browser issue fixed by the next browser update. Anyway thanks for trying. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Hegseth

Why do we need to say "alleged" for the sentence in the lede for Hegseth that "numerous reports surfaced about alleged sexual misconduct, financial mismanagement, and public drunkenness which threatened his confirmation"? You seem to want to keep everything shorter. Having the statement "numerous reports surfaced" make it clear that the reports are making the allegations. I don't really care (and happy to leave "alleged" in as is. That is why I'm bringing this to your talk page and not the main talk page) but it seems to go against your whole "make everything shorter" modius operandi. So I was just curious. Why not go for brevity here? Remember (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

New message to FMSky

I have a theory: a one-off mention someone made in a letter is typically not something to include in their encyclopedia article. Remsense ‥ 论 15:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

User:AndrewTheWikiEditor and Rihanna

Hi FMKSky, seems like that user is back again, vandalizing the Rihanna page by putting his preferred genre of pop first without establishing a consensus, are you able to sort both out please?

Many, many thanks 95.9.181.52 (talk) 08:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I am not vandalizing the Rihanna article! I'm just fixing it, Rihanna is both a pop artist and always has been, even AllMusic says so! AndrewTheWikiEditor (talk) 13:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Laken Riley Act

So much vandalism. Thanks for your help. Bearian (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Project 2025

Hello I saw something important on project 2025 on the Kevin Roberts page was erased. Was it an accident or I’m trying to see why that was removed 212.33.76.183 (talk) 08:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Was explained here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User%3A_Summerfell1978_reported_by_User%3AJust10A_%28Result%3A_Blocked%29 --FMSky (talk) 09:23, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Your revert at Kevin Roberts (political strategist) was definitely not a minor edit

It doesn't matter of you were right, you must know by now what can be marked minor. Doug Weller talk 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Could you please help me understand how Wikipedia works. Why is he allowed to revert something of another user. Is it because he has more experience and on Wikipedia longer? I think what he reverted is wrong. What is my step to put the sentence back up. Or do I have to post on the talk page. But if we talk on the talk page how long do we wait until we are allowed to add something to the Wikipedia, if no one comments or gives their opinion about the change? I guess what I’m trying to say is I don’t agree with him undoing that. That is important information because Kevin is the president of that organization who wrote that project plan. 212.33.76.183 (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That happens automatically when using Twinkle. Dont really know how to get around this --FMSky (talk) 09:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Louise Slaughter

FMSky, I made a series of about a dozen edits to the Louise Slaughter page, including some much-needed copyedits, removal of unsourced and tagged material, etc. I noticed that you undid every single one without offering a reason, which is nonconstructive editing. I would ask that you please reinstate my edits. Once that is done, if there are any individual edits I made that you take issue with, I'll be happy to discuss them with you at the talk page. Thank you. 172.100.117.24 (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll restore your version for now and see if I can find sources for the removed parts --FMSky (talk) 13:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Appreciated. 172.100.117.24 (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		An award for the excellent user you are.

JacktheBrown (talk) 18:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks mate 😁 --FMSky (talk) 05:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

You deserve it 😉 JacktheBrown (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

February 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page Harvester of Sorrow. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use your sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Thank you. Qrstw talk contribs 17:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

@Qrstw: ???? I reverted IP vandalism https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harvester_of_Sorrow&diff=prev&oldid=1276233798 --FMSky (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Disappointing deletion of prior 'good faith' message on this page.

In the spirit of Wikipedia:Civility here on Wikipedia, it's very sad to see the removal of the comprehensive & deeply considered reply I posted for you here on this page just over 12 hours ago. Would you please restore this prior message so that a we can have a truly civil & productive dialogue about how Wikipedia editing works from your perspective. In the spirit of mutual enlightenment, I'd also be grateful if you would help me understand how you approach your contributions here by please replying to the 3 questions in that message, namely:

1) What first alerted you to the false claim that my work here on Wikipedia was allegedly partisan?
2) Are you using (& could you recommend) any editing tools, scripts, or bots (e.g. AutoWikiBrowser, JWB, Twinkle, Huggle, RedWarn, UltraViolet, etc., etc.)?
3) (& just for fun, 'coz I'm always curious about this stuff) What's the story behind your user name?

Hope to hear from you soon. Cheers! Bluevista99 (talk) 04:54, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page --FMSky (talk) 04:58, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, which I've read & considered a number of times (& I'll do some more meditating upon). Meanwhile, why "FMSky" as a username? Bluevista99 (talk) 05:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Autogenerated nonsense without any meaning. The original name I wanted was already taken --FMSky (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

OK, it does the job, & I like the ring of it. I had a vague sense it referred to something I couldn't dig out of my memory, but memory plays tricks. So, maybe you can enlighten me on something else. When you posted the original notice on my User Page, it consisted of template text rather than an actual template (have I got that right?). Am I guessing correctly that this resulted from using a tool or script, because I'm keen to know if you can recommend it or any others (my productivity needs a serious boost)? Bluevista99 (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

It was actually an autogenerated message by using the tool WP:TWINKLE. If you wanna use it you can activate it via Preferences->Gadgets. It has a couple of useful features --- FMSky (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Repeated edits of With Love, Meghan

Your edits do not appear constructive or in alignment with standard Wikipedia edits.

The "reception /reviews" belongs under the "Reception" header, not generally in the overall summary

Cibrian209 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Cibrian209: No, the reception of a televion series or film is commonly also included in the lead section. The lead is meant as a summary of the article body --FMSky (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

please review this list here:

Category:Netflix original documentary television series Cibrian209 (talk) 19:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What is this supposed to show? --FMSky (talk) 19:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Troll on Murder of Laken Riley

The comment I deleted was from an IP user with a history of vandalizing articles with racist nonsense. His comment on Talk:Murder_of_Laken_Riley was not contributing to the discussion, and was instead intended to further politicize the murder. I removed it as per WP:DENY. I will remove it a second time. 46.97.170.73 (talk) 10:29, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

As far as I know WP:COMMONNAME only applies to titles

Do you have other objections? Just wanted to make sure I understand your perspective. SexBomm (talk) 01:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Anthony Cumia

Thanks for your help with this and other related pages. You can delete this afterwards if you'd like, but there's a user that will likely try and add the "tag bombing" that you removed once they see it. I won't call them out by name, but it's the same user who made a big fuss over Compound Media's page having a section for its shows. They're very politically motivated and seem to have it out for anyone associated to Cumia/Compound, so yeah... I hope it doesn't happen, but beware. Again, thanks. Секретное общество (talk) 03:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

March 2025

Hello, I'm SpookyTwenty. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Taylor Lorenz have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, what are you exactly talking about? -FMSky (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taylor_Lorenz&curid=64442632&diff=1280614750&oldid=1280495264 SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes thats why I ask, what are you exactly talking about? --FMSky (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Seeemd unconstructive to change a section title using nothing but the edit note "original research" SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:21, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

And you reverted it while not providing a reason at all. Is that constructive? --FMSky (talk) 23:22, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I started a discussion on Talk:Taylor Lorenz SpookyTwenty (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

Alright thx --FMSky (talk) 23:28, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

About your recent file uploads

Hey FMSky, I noticed you uploaded a bunch of cover artworks recently. Could you please update the source links for all of them to reflect where you got the new versions? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but most of the original files didnt have a link to begin with and the pictures are mostly just higher res versions of the exact same file --FMSky (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but you should know that providing the source for non-free images uploaded to Wikipedia is required by policy. Regardless of the state of the file before you modified it, your uploads could be subject to speedy deletion under criterion F4. I assume you know where you acquired the new versions of these files, so the easiest thing to do here would be just to update the links in the file description templates. Let me know if you have any questions about this. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Im going through them right now --FMSky (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

excuse me sir

Explain why you removed the up and down head description of thrash - if you look up legendary youtube channel thestrober, you will find that up and down heads are a focal point of his awesome thrash songs - please write back to me thank you 2A02:C7C:1AA4:A000:FD9C:51BB:9E50:417B (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

Rihanna

Looks like they’re changing the genre without consensus again, can you please revert it back? Theamazinglyamazingamazebles (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Yasuke, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Relm (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@RelmC WP:DTTR Kowal2701 (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

That's an essay not a policy, and it's an essay I don't subscribe to. Relm (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Clint Eastwood Account

You might not think so but it's Authorised by his Family. His Daughter has Publicly announced it. So you are wrong. It's currently awaiting Verification and ID Verification. DeanJer1937 (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Would be better to wait for the verification then. As it stands thats just a random eastwood-related account --FMSky (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

it was put back on as it would be tomorrow I was told. Hardly Random since it has his Branding on there. What other random accounts have access to the company's own branding. A Clint Fan would realise that straight away. I take you aren't. DeanJer1937 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Whatever dont really care if its in or not --FMSky (talk) 00:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

u are a Madrid fan and a hater of Barcelona because if u watch football instead of sourcing u will realise that raphinha this seen is second to none this season. Lamine304 (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Aight - FMSky (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Galneryus

Hello, do you consider https://www.sputnikmusic.com/ a reliable source? For me it is not, they always confuse european melodic power metal with progressive power metal, for example Galneryus in this case or Versailles, secondly, interviews are not reliable sources, the artist can identify with any style but it is not always correct, galneryus labeling them as a prog metal band is far from it, they have always been neoclassical/melodic power metal very inspired by the Euro-power of Stratovarius. also the symphonic can be appreciated in some compositions, well greetings, hope you have a nice day. 181.42.42.32 (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah but not always. Reviews by staff users are probably reliable (they have a note on their profile saying 'staff'), I'm not sure about the others --FMSky (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

I tell you this because they make the mistake of confusing melodic black metal with melodic death metal, an example is wintersun, their debut album is not MeloBlack at all, they confuse them because of the gutturals but melodeath also has sharp gutturals, an example is Carcass, those gutturals are typical of melodeath, the same with Kalmah. 181.42.42.152 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Power metal

Power metal although it has traditional elements, the basis of its influence is speed and classical music, Power is an offshoot of speed metal, wouldn't it be better to place it first and neoclassical metal second. Greetings 181.42.42.32 (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about -- FMSky (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Thread

Hi, mentioned you at WP:ANI#NPA Kowal2701 (talk) 07:59, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, though not sure if I'll comment there as I just wanna wait the SPI case out --FMSky (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Same Kowal2701 (talk) 08:00, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

tban

Hey, FMSky, just as a FWIW...that tban from OUR/Ballard was listed as an indef, and it is not marked as having been lifted. If you appealed somewhere and got it lifted, you should ask the admin who actioned that to mark the AElog. Valereee (talk) 12:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken that is indeed still active though I dont care cause I dont plan on editing that person in the future. --FMSky (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

You'd said multiple times recently that a gensex-related tban had expired, was this the one you were talking about? Valereee (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

The transgender related ban expired last October, and this weird Tim Ballard ban was indefinitely iirc --FMSky (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Metalcore and neutrality

I expanded those sections on the Metalcore article to mainly help clear up widespread confusion regarding the first two waves of the genre, which sound drastically different from each other (I'll try showing Converge or Deadguy or Botch to my normie friends and they'll just say "this isn't metalcore, this is punk/hardcore/indie!"). I would differentiate bands like A7X, Killswitch ect. as simply "melodic metalcore" if I could, but most sources have them listed as simply "metalcore" or "2000s metalcore" so there's not much I can do in that regard. Is the neutrality issue mainly in the title? Or is there more that can be done for this section? "Criticism" doesn't necessarily always imply negative criticism. Maybe the content can be moved or merged to different sections or articles. I'm thinking out loud at this point. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it was the section title, i haven't completely looked at the content you added. I think "Criticism" is ok as a heading but "controversy" probably not so much so I changed that

On 2nd look im not completely sure if criticism is the best fit either --FMSky (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

If it's alright for me to give an opinion on this. The way I view this section is that the first paragraph is about the genre's bad reputation; the second, third and fourth paragraphs discuss the genre's sound changing overtime. The first is definitely a criticism of the term's use on certain bands, the rest seem to be viewing the fact that some bands in the genre aren't rooted in metal and hardcore as a criticism. I don't see why that would be a controversy, to me that's simply an observation. Would those final three paragraphs not work better under the characteristics header and the opening paragraph under the etymology? Alternatively, the whole section could be viewed as a criticism of the terminology, in which case, would it not all fit better under etymology? Issan Sumisu (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

What do you think of the current revision? Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I think that looks good. Issan Sumisu (talk) 18:04, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Awesome. Lofi Gurl (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)