User talk:Mr Pyles#Def Leppard

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/Intro2}}

{{Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Newsletter/box-footer|}}

:Pop metal is a redirect link to a different article. On Wikipedia redirect links are frowned upon. Also please read WP:CIVIL and then read WP:DICK. You appear to favour one over the other resulting in numerous (now blanked) warnings on your talk page. Just a hint... the behaviour described in the second link... YOU... is also frowned upon on Wikipedia and can find you blocked very quick if you don't straighten up and stop acting the way you are right now. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:59, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

::Wow! Thank you for the civility. I actually want it to be glam metal instead of pop metal but the consensus favours pop metal because the sources clearly state pop metal. Also those warnings were from Rush not Def Leppard. Also that link to Dick is offensive. Battleground "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, carry on ideological battles, or nurture prejudice, hatred, or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals. In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point to someone with whom you disagree." So please try to act a bit calmer. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC) Also please stop Wikistalking me. --Jamcad01 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

:::Also you are a hypocrite for sending me the link to civility. "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, disrespectful comments, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Editors are human, capable of mistakes, so a few minor incidents of incivility are not in themselves a major concern. However, a studied pattern of incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and may result in blocks if it rises to the level of harassment or egregious personal attacks. A single act of incivility can also cross the line if it is severe enough: for instance, extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor, or a threat against another person can all result in blocks without consideration of a pattern." This is what you are doing and this also came from the WIkipedia:Civility page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamcad01 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Noted... and promptly disregarded. If you are looking for a stage to perform more drama queen soliloquies... try a different forum other than Wikipedia. Happy New Year to you. Now trot off.... Mr Pyles (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

:You have earned the accolades and a few Barnstars as well I see. There are many disruptive and uncivil trolls lurking in the music article ocean. You have shown yourself to be an editor of great demeanour and merit. Cheers to you and all you've done for Wikipedia. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

::I've certainly met a few difficult characters, but also some really knowledgable and good-spirited people, and I'd like to think the latter outnumber the former. Thanks again, much appreciated :) Happy New Year! Bretonbanquet (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

:On the Black Sabbath talk page itself the topic of doom metal, usually put forth by anons is always acknowledged by "veteran' editors (people like Rodhullandemu, JO4n, Radioapthy, Wikilibs, Anger22 etc) as being valid only in-so-far-as they were an influence .... more in the lyrical than in the musical. This message seems to ring thru every single time the topic is broached. I personally would agree... when I saw them live in 1972 and 1975 they were heavy.. and they had some doom quality in a song or 2. But what always rings out was the blues riffs and the hooks... even in the slow songs. As for allmusic... when I go back to the WP:RS discussion (archive 14) about whther Allmusic is a valid resource when it comes to heavy metal the consensus of the discussion is that since the website seems to carry over so many style note from one album to the next... then the page should never be used on any page where there is a consistent debate. The Black Sabbath talk page clearly show a consistent debate, albeit from IPs mainly, so in this case allmusic should be ignored where Back Sabbath genre are concerned. Hope that helps. Have a Happy Metal New Year! Mr Pyles (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

:I questioned removing it since the Deluxe version of the album (which is a limited release) contains the HM soundtrack version of the song. But on the grand scheme of things... where that release is so limited... it is misleading and stretching the truth quite a bit to get that album into the Ward discography when, in truth, he was not a part of the original recording at all. Perhaps I am wrong on that. But that's just how I looked at the big picture. Happy New Year! Mr Pyles (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

::I agree, I don't think the record has a place on a short discography list like that. If it were more exhaustive, then maybe, but a one-track appearance doesn't warrant inclusion here, I would say. Cheers, Colinclarksmith (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The above link explains that it is the person-supplying-the-information's responsibility to provide a citation. Removing unreferenced content is actually quite responsible.Curb Chain (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

You can drop the thinly veiled personal attacks. The person adding the material without a source can have the unsourced material removed. It's as simple as that. The person removing the material has no responsibility to add sources.Curb Chain (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

:But they were all valid entries... and you could have easily added sources rather than lie through your teeth and call a legit edit vandalism. You are a newbie so WP:AGF still covers your ignorance... for now. But since the page has several regular editors... instead of just reverting blindly like a 6 year old would do.... if it is a legit edit... try doing what good Wikipedia editors do and find a ref. If it is a nonsense edit... by all means, revert it. But when it's a list a thrash metal bands and you revert someone adding the band Vio-Lence to the list... that isn't reverting reverting vandalism... that is being nothing short of ignorant and a**hole-ish. You obviously know nothing about the subject... so it could be a mistake. But you were also asked politely to simply tag for references and wait. If no one adds of ref within a week or 2... then feel free to remove. Remember.. you are not the only editor of the page... and you do not OWN it. So join the Wikipedia community... don't alienate it. One last tip. If a band is a heavy metal band... and they are someohow connected in a ref that says 'thrash' but not metal... that ref is valid enough as long as it passes WP:RS. It doesn't have to say 'metal' to be a reference about thrash metal... hope that helps. Cheers and take care. Mr Pyles (talk) 22:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

::Your first edit to the page was 00:09, 27 December 2011. None of them were valid entries. Once again, if WP:BURDEN states specifically that the responsibility to provide references is the editor who adds the nascent material. The latest edit that I labelled "vandalism" was with the edit summary "vandalism/no sources" at 17:43 5 November 2011. This was before your first edit to the article. Are you accusing me of falsifying my edit summaries? I may have miss labelled my edit summaries earlier labelling them vandalism, but I had removed many uncited entries as well, which have not reappeared in the last months.

::I doubt 6 year olds have even the hand-key coordination to make edits on wikipedia. Do you have a rational argument to compare my edits to?

::If it is not a legit [sic] edit, then please report me. If I did something bad, please report me. We have oversight mechanisms on wikipedia. Oh, I am definitely ignorant of thrash metal, but not of wikipedia policies and guidelines. I "know" nothing about the subject, nor do I need to.

::I am here to make articles better. I don't want to see entries added without references.

::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_thrash_metal_bands#Dishonest_Revert In] this section, I explain that thrash can mean more than just "thrash metal". Please peruse thrash as it explains that if a citation mentions "thrash", it may not mean "thrash metal"

::If you have the inclination to rage, I suggest you take a wikibreak as that is what most wikieditors do to blow off steam.Curb Chain (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

:Yo've been earning it. Nice signature. Made me think of the BOC logo for some reason? Mr Pyles (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

::I've no idea what that logo is. I just like the upside down question mark, and I just like the colors :)--¿3family6 _contribs 03:10, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

:::The ol' BOC logo is sort-of an upside-down Q mark with a cross attached.... Eric Bloom has a custom guitar made to look like it. [http://a1.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/107/6b0b1e6eb4e04d34bf7bf69b5192a379/l.jpg see pic] It adorned a few Blue Oyster Cult albums. Your inverted punctation just made me think of it quickly. Its a cool design for a sig. Makes other editors remember who you are. (and thats a good thing... I've been editing Wikipedia off and on for 7 years... a positive rep is good.... give you lots of elbow room) Mr Pyles (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

:I saw the source on the LoGP page. It's an Italian page (originally) so it can't be used on English Wikipedia. I am pretty sure an English version of the same article must be somewhere. Find it and then use it in both the list and in the main main Clark article. Mr Pyles (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

::I couldn't find an English version so found some new sources. --Jamcad01 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

::A Japanese magazine is an English source? What is the quote? It should be included in the citation. Mr Pyles (talk) 12:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:::I've fixed it so it doesn't contain Japenese sources. --Jamcad01 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

:Usually guest instrumentalists do not get full member status... just guests. And there is no strong citations to support being a full member other than sources from the group themselves... which would be a self-ref and therefore fail WP:V. If other citations are available that would be perfectly OK. And Mrs Pyles is dead. Mr Pyles (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Skolnick was only a guest instrumentalist on the Live disc. He was a full member for the first one. As for web citations, check the Stratospheerius website (http://www.stratospheerius.com/pages/link_main.html) where he is listed as a "Former Member". There are no citations to support Skolnick being a guest instrumentalist other than for his guest appearance on the live album. Sorry to hear about the wife. D.C.Roth 13:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

:Only online for about 5 minutes today. But I will look into your request and comment on it later on tomorrow night. Cheers! Mr Pyles (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::There's no hurry, thank you for looking into it. Take care, Quibus (talk) 06:08, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

:You'd best be inviting Blackmetalbaz as well. Mr Pyles (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

::I'm afraid there is nothing that can be done other than monitor the pages that are the regular haunts and if it gets too bad you can request a semi-protect on the page to keep the IPs out. Mr Pyles (talk) 00:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a straw poll taking place [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Beatles#Straw_Poll_III here], and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

::Thanks... added an off-topic(slightly) comment already... not sure how I view the other. Thanks for keeping me in the loop to at least go and look.... and ponder pros and cons. Mr Pyles (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

:Every queen article lists rock and then details with citations the styles covered. Look at them all. There are a few useless fanboys hovering over 1 or 2 pages for some strange reason... but all the rest remain consistent... And the Queen project and numerous discussion on the main Queen page supports the consistency. Mr Pyles (talk) 03:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

:IP trolls are common. There is already volumes of discussion on the subject. Mr Pyles (talk) 01:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

::A ) you keep adding arena rock to a field that is for genres only. And Arena Rock is not a musical genre ... even the article for it supports that. And so you are misusing an infobox for false entries.... and B ) for all other Queen related articles you need to read the talk pages of both Queen and the Queen wikipedia project to see the concensus that all Queen articles are to only list 'rock' in the infobox with a detailed and referenced musical style section written in prose within the article being completely acceptable since the band covers so many styles on each album listing anything other than the parent genre is useless. You are a newbie so you would not know the long history and your errors are forgivable. Hope that helps. Mr Pyles (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Please show me exact pointers for the discussions. Thank you, MarioNovi (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

:Yes. Fancruft or listcruft has always been a problem. Mr Pyles (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

::I had two prior accounts, but I retired both of them. I don't believe either of them are open, so this should be okay right? Or am I wrong? Johnny338 (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:::Not for us to decide. A clean slate is OK ... if past history shows no evidence of being blocked permanently. It's not for us to decide. Good luck editing until such time as that occurs. Mr Pyles (talk) 20:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

::::Thanks! My apologies for the confusion. I should have indicated on my userpage immediately after I joined that this was the case. Anyways, happy editing! Johnny338 (talk) 20:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

:I am not sure how to word any comment that the other editor who is violating WP:OWN] by pressing his "my opinion is the facts" stance... since Arena Rock NOT being a genre has its entire foundation in editor consensus.... it can't be used as a source for the argument itself.

....give me time to think on it. Meanwhile don't spin any wheels on it. You can't win every battle and constant reverts between editors solves nothing. In the end.... people reading that particular article won't refer to the infobox won't be mislead or offended by the infobox istelf. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

::No problem! Take as much time as you need. Don't worry, I won't comment on it further. No need to stir the pot. What bothers me is not the editor's stance per se, but his thinly veiled hostility as well as his acting as if he owns the article (as you pointed out) that bugs me. As I pointed out, I think he would be better served if he simply brought this up on the Arena rock talk page. That way, if the consensus changes, it will be consistent. Anyways, take as much time as you need to gather your thoughts! Cheers! Johnny338 (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

:::I have brought this issue up on the music genres task force here, since there appears to be a lot of confusion regarding whether arena rock constitutes a genre or musical style, or whether it is just a term. Feel free to weigh in! Johnny338 (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

:Thank you. There a few who watch it, yourself included... fancruft abounds on Wikipedia.... hard to get it all. Mr Pyles (talk) 02:37, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}