FatalError (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215326148 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215400289 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215400337 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215405089 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215407374 5] There you go. I also like how you've replied to all the comments on your talk page, yet refuse to reply on The Used's talk page. Come on dude, I really don't want another edit war. Let's just resolve it. -- '''[[User:FatalError|Fatal]]'''[[User talk:FatalError|Error]] 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
::[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215326148 1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215400289 2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215400337 3] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215405089 4] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Used&oldid=215407374 5] There you go. I also like how you've replied to all the comments on your talk page, yet refuse to reply on The Used's talk page. Come on dude, I really don't want another edit war. Let's just resolve it. -- '''[[User:FatalError|Fatal]]'''[[User talk:FatalError|Error]] 04:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:2 of them were undo, 4 of ur were undo, my other 3 edits were different so it is not 3rr. [[User:USEDfan|USEDfan]] ([[User talk:USEDfan#top|talk]]) 17:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:01, 28 May 2008
Hi other wiki users
anything you need to talk about to me with can be done here, thanx. USEDfan (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Template:The Used
WOW! Good idea sorting the singles by album. It works perfectly. I'm impressed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
New album
The vibe I was getting was that they are going in a much further direction from their original sound than Lies for the Liars, which makes me worried. However, I like that it isn't going to be over-produced, which is what contributed to their getting progressively divergent, and thus, worse. Don't get me wrong, they're still a great band. It's just that they haven't been able to top their first album yet, and they clearly have the talent to do so. In Love and Death wasn't bad, considering what Bert went through at the time, but it wasn't great either. Lies was really bad, though the b-sides were great. I think they tried too hard to be "different" from their sound. The band actually said that they weren't putting as much thought into that release as they did for their other ones. Now they want to be more "different", so it's possible that this album will be their worst. But maybe the different approach will produce something unexpectedly good. Not trying to dampen your spirits, I'm excited too. But they've disappointed before. One of these days, I'll start the article on their 4th album. Just have to get everything in order so that it won't get deleted again :| --Pwnage8 (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I wasn't saying change was bad, it's just that they are changing from something that was unique, and are starting to sound like every other band. I think we can both agree that for In Love and Death, they changed their sound, but still sounded like themselves, whereas Lies for the Liars was a complete "makeover". You can evolve and "mature" within your style, without a complete change for every album, and without sounding "the same". Anyway, I found out about this site, Wikinfo, where you can write from a "sympathetic point of view", instead of a neutral one, and original research is welcome. Maybe you can write a nice and biased article about The Used there. Currently, there is nothing written about them. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
May 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Grand Theft Auto IV appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. Bill (talk|contribs) 00:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to PlayStation 3, you will be blocked from editing. Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
You really enjoy being disruptive, don't you? Nouse4aname (talk) 09:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You refuse to listen to advice when others are trying to help you. By the way, it's 10:15 AM where I am...Nouse4aname (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's just the sort of mature attitude I expected from you. How old are you exactly? I'm guessing no more than 12. This isn't an American site. It is an English language site, for people to contribute to using English. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! 19, yeah right! The reason I go to an admin is because that is how problems are best dealt with around here. Especially with people like you, who refuse to enter meaningful discussion, and insist that your way is always right. If you want to avoid being reported, perhaps you should learn to contribute constructively... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a kid. No MySpace. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- 25 thanks. And as you have clearly demonstrated, you are the one with the attitude that the world revolves around them, and that you are always right. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously kid, do you really think that sort of attitude is going to get you very far in life? You have a lot to learn... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ummmm...no, not quite. Married, educated, employed. Nice guess though. Oh, and some people can manage to do more than one think at a time by the way... I think this conversation has run its course. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously kid, do you really think that sort of attitude is going to get you very far in life? You have a lot to learn... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- 25 thanks. And as you have clearly demonstrated, you are the one with the attitude that the world revolves around them, and that you are always right. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, I'm not a kid. No MySpace. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ha! 19, yeah right! The reason I go to an admin is because that is how problems are best dealt with around here. Especially with people like you, who refuse to enter meaningful discussion, and insist that your way is always right. If you want to avoid being reported, perhaps you should learn to contribute constructively... Nouse4aname (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well that's just the sort of mature attitude I expected from you. How old are you exactly? I'm guessing no more than 12. This isn't an American site. It is an English language site, for people to contribute to using English. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Haha USEDfan, if you're really 19 then I seriously hope you're using a strong deal of irony! :D (otherwise just shut up and come back when you've learned to contribute to an encyclopedia) — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 10:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Some useful reading
I've noticed you're getting angry at some people who are changing your edits. Perhaps you need to do some reading to why people are changing them. Here's a few guidelines that should help you understand better.
- Verifiability: Every addition to the encyclopedia needs to be verifiable. If an item isn't verifiable then it can be removed by anyone.
- Reliable sources: Sources that are used must be reliable. Usually blogs, forums and messageboard posts are not reliable and cannot be used to backup claims.
- Neutral point of view: Content must be written in a neutral way. If a band has been described as "unique", or a video game has been called "overrated", and you have a reliable source to verify this, then don't just put the words anywhere. These words are opinions of somebody so they must be clearly stated that they are opinions of somebody.
- No original research: Don't add content based on your own observations that are more than just simple descriptive claims.
- Assume good faith: People are doing the edits which they think are the best for the article. Unless it's obvious, don't accuse people of vandalism.
- Remain civil: Don't resort to name-calling or personal attacks in a discussion. Instead try to sort out the issue and consult the relevant guidelines for help.
I hope these will help you out and make your contribution to the project go much smoother. Bill (talk|contribs) 17:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
GTA 4 Disruptive Edits
Hi. Please stop disrupting the GTA 4 article with your edits about it not living up to the reviews it received. This is your personal viewpoint, and not a neutral or globally accepted one. All reviews have been universally positive (the lowest score on Gamerankings is 90%). Thanks! Fin©™ 17:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to repeat what Bill said above, check out WP:RS. People on forums are not a reliable source, or one that can be included on wikipedia. Thanks! Fin©™ 20:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Grand Theft Auto IV, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grsztalk 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Re: wtf
o.O I never played it, what makes you say that? And if you're not lying about your age, I think it's your mind that's more messed up.
No, seriously. I saw that you'd made some constructive edits to the The Used template. Good job, but take some time to read read the links that Bill put up above. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 20:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah' you're the king of kings. You can't even indent some fucking text in a simple editor. Hope you get banned for your sockpuppetry. — Emil K. (talk|contribs) 22:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
User blocked
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Stop_x_nuvola.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola.svg.png)
--Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 02:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
USEDfan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
i was just blocked without any warning indefinitlly when i made a post that provided a source to provide the info i made it with, this is ridicolous, its not vandalism when i provide a source.USEDfan (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Your lack of basic understanding of various policies and guidelines has gotten you into trouble previously. You were blocked for edit warring once before, and your communication with others leaves something more to be desired. You apparently did not bother to read up on what constitutes a reliable source or how to properly cite sources, despite the pleas of numerous editors. Comments such as this and [1] only leaves me to agree with Esanchez on this. — seicer | talk | contribs 03:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
{{unblock reviewed|this is ridicolous, it was a reliable source and the info was correct, and if it wasnt the admin should of said u will be banned if u ou this in here again, i put info into the page with a reliable source that proved the sentence i added correct, and even it it wasnt i shouldnt of been banned indefinitlly, it is ridicolous that i got an indefinite ban for adding 1 sentence that i provided two sentences for, its an outrage, the ban has to be reduced if im not unbanned immeditly. USEDfan (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)|Your block has been reduced in length - see below. However, it is very important that you read about verifiability and [[WP:RS|reliable sources] and adhere to those policies. For example, fan postings to game boards are absolutely not reliable sources, and can never be used as sources for Wikipedia articles. You also need to read our policy forbidding personal attacks. If you continue to attack other editors you will be blocked for a much longer time. You were fairly warned that your behavior was unacceptable. When this happens, you need to modify what you do, or we will block you to protect Wikipedia. Thanks, Gwernol 13:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)}}
- I would consider lifting this ban if you voluntarily accept two conditions. 1) That you will no longer make any edits related to GTA4 or related pages for 24 hours, and 2) That you will agree to never revert any edits by other people, and will instead make a request at the talk page of the article in order to do so instead. If others agree with your requested reverts, then they will comment as such on the talk page. Do you agree to these conditions? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I would agree based on the principles of 1RR -- i.e. one revert per day -- and that Usedfan demonstrates that he understands the core policies of Wikipedia, including what constitutes a reliable source and a citation. I would also ask that UsedFan refrain from making snide comments on other user's talk pages. seicer | talk | contribs 03:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- okay look here guys, all i really like to edit is my fav band page (the used) and my fav video game page (ratchet and clank), i like to add updates to the page and protect the page against vadalization, my main purpose on being on wiki is to keep the used page up to date with what they have been up to and plans for their new album and the future, if i was banned i wouldnt of been mad, but i was pissed i got banned forever for vandalizing one sentence on a page. it should of been a 24 hour ban for 1 infragment of vandalization, i had some problems iwth people on the used page when i first got started on wiki and served a banned for it for a day and i made up with all the people that edit the used page and together we agreed on all the thing we fought about, everything was fine for the last 3 weeks or so until today, i made one edit and added a source and felt that it shud be there but if this is the case it became, im sorry, i wont edit those pages of games i dont like anymore, i will agree to not edit gta pages or any other page with anything but real information, i think i should have another chance since i realize now how seriously you admins take this now, remember im still pretty new to this and learning still, i would appreciate if you unblocked me, i mean cause come one, it cant be 1 strike and im out, at least give me 2, plus now that i no if edit it again ill be banned forever, i never will edit like that again, so please give me another chance and ill go back to the good times where i make constructive edits to the used page and a few others. thanks in advance. USEDfan (talk) 06:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
"Vandalism-only account" is clearly not the case here. If this userhis to be blocked, so be it, but this certainly is not a vandalism account. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- I've reset it for 55 hours, adding onto time already served, which would total 65 hours. Note that any further infractions will lead to increased durations. seicer | talk | contribs 12:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Branden and The Used
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but I can't let this go about Branden being kicked out of the band. I don't doubt your good intentions, but here are the facts I've seen: The Used said in their statement regarding Branden (available here), "We felt that we needed to move forward without Branden as our drummer." That's indisputably a polite way of saying they kicked him out. Nowhere did they say it was a mutual departure. If a girl tells her boyfriend that she needs to "move on" in her life, that doesn't mean it's a "mutual departure." The statement referenced in the article, and available here, says nothing of "parting ways."
If you have a link or other source that says, "This is a mutual departure," by all means, I'd love to see it. Until then, editing The Used's article to say they lied about kicking out Branden is inaccurate and maybe even defamatory. Please stop reverting it. Thanks. See Jay (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
The Used Genres
You obviously dont know the difference between post-hardcore and screamo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SilverOrion (talk • contribs) 07:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC) Mmm i see that other people have complained about your behaviour on wikipedia. Its also interesting how you've been using puppet accounts and have also previously been banned. You're stepping on thin ice, kid.--SilverOrion (talk) 10:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Having a genre section does not mean we have to add "disputed" to all the album articles. They don't do that for MCR, or any other "disputed" bands. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm starting to worry that you might be using the genre dispute section as a cop-out for not actually telling people what the genre is. Who cares if SilverOrion is going to keep changing it? If he does, that's being disruptive and he could get blocked for it. We must not bow down to that kind of disruptive behavior, just as I and other wikipedians didn't bow down to your previous disruptive sockpuppetry. As you said, their sound changes with every album, so not everything in the paragraph would be relevant to all of them. I think we should at least give the reader an idea of what the sound is like without directing them to another page. If you look at the MCR album articles, some of them link to the dispute paragraph, but they also provide one or two genres as a basic reference. You mentioned to me that "this isnt a shitty mcr page", but that statement is POV, and it shouldn't even be taken into consideration what the band is. Wikipedia treats all articles the same way. You can't be biased like that. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I was just using your case as an example as to how we should act. Personally, I don't think they should be listed as screamo, but I also think the fact that they are often referred to as screamo should be documented in the paragraph. I propose that we have Emo and Alternative listed for everything until Berth, and then just alternative for everything after + the "disputed subgenres" that links to the paragraph. I'm going to make the changes now. But what should we do for the main article? --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Genre section
It's a good start. I like what you've done so far. The page really needed more content than just the bio. The section needs work though. I'll see what I can do...
Just wondering.. do you have any photos that can go in the article? It could use more pics. --Pwnage8 (talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Though I think there should be a better photo in the infobox, I was talking about performance pictures, or anything else that can fit into the bio. It's kinda boring right now without pics. If you look at other band articles, especially the more mainstream ones, there's photos in the bio/history, and it really adds to the article. Just something I been thinking about for a while, that there should be more pics. Sure, there's ones on google, but non-free images require fair use rationales, and that can be complicated. Better if you can provide a photo you've taken yourself. And yes, I did see that the new album info has been changed. I noticed that the interview with Jeph is gone, and I'm wondering why. --Pwnage8 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Member sections
They tried that for the New Found Glory article, and it didn't work. Really, either they should have their own article, or nothing at all. Each member is definitely notable enough for an article. Everyone's just been too lazy to make good ones. Everything on wikipedia depends on how much work editors put in. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Citations
I completely understand. It's just that wikipedia requires everything to be verifiable. So if you read stuff, and then put information on the page, especially if it's as significant as the claim in question, cite please. It's nothing against you. Someone else would've probably put up the [citation needed] if I didn't, for this very reason. --Pwnage8 (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Used article
Yeah, it really has improved over the past 6 months or so. A way we can make it better is if we make a proper lead section for the article. I wrote one a couple months ago I think, and you and some other user deleted it because the information was "already in the bio". But we need a summary of the article, in order to entice the reader to continue reading the whole thing. We should also try to get it to the level of good article, and eventually featured status. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the genre section. It has definitely helped with organization and the edit wars going on. I edited it a bit to make it sound a little better, and I removed the reference to Last.fm (Wikipedia does not allow references to open wikis), but other than that, good move. Also, if you could find another source instead of the Last.fm one, that would be great. (I don't know if you added it, but either way...) Thanks again! -- FatalError (t|c) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Your message about The Used
Definitely don't provoke them, you did the right thing by going to the discussion page, User:SilverOrion may have violated the WP:3RR rule (keep in mind you may get blocked for that too), investigating... (the message below is for your own awareness about the 3RR rule)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. – Zedla (talk) 07:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Protection
You can always run over to Administrators Noticeboard/Incidents if you need urgent attention for a non-trivial matter. I've protected the page to stop the edit war. To be fair I'm not going to endorse/revert any particular version ( I know you might be upset by that ), you can use {{editprotected}} or talk to me (or any other administrator at WP:RFPP#Current requests for significant edits to a protected page) about making edits after everyone has gained some consensus on how the article should evolve. – Zedla (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately compliments on your user page aren't the same thing as having WP:consensus about disputed edits. Considering your block history you really do need to spend some time on the Talk:The Used page and discuss each disputed edit and really achieve consensus. – Zedla (talk) 08:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
It really sucks that the page was locked. What's disappointing is that it didn't have to be this way. Yes, SilverOrion screwed up the page, but edit warring as much as you both have done is not the way to go. I admit that I have been in edit wars on the page in the past, but usually after the 3rd time, I try to discuss it ;) I see that you posted on his talk page, but maybe if you explained to him why the page should be your way, this wouldn't have happened. I'm not mad at you, I just don't like the fact that the page is stuck his way now. You can read what I had to say at Talk:The Used#page locked due to SilverOrion. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Progress
First a caution, please remain calm and cool. Don't re-edit other users comments anywhere on a talk page (User_talk or Talk:The Used). It's bad etiquette and continuing to do so is a great way to earn yourself another account block. Please review Wikipedia:dispute resolution as well and keep your focus and arguments on content.
The other thing is that WP:consensus can take time to achieve, please re-read that section, step back, pause, and think about the arguments you are making on Talk:The Used and in your request for unprotection at WP:RFPP. Progress is being made but it's not entirely clear that all disputes have been resolved to warrant unprotection or that the edit war won't resume if protection is lifted.
If you feel there's enough of a consensus for a specific edit (maybe take a small first step and propose re-adding the external link) feel free to use the {{editprotected}} template on Talk:The Used to propose the edit be done by an admin. Continuing to monitor... – Zedla (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello
Hello again USEDfan. Remember me? Your edits over the last month or two have yet again been brought to my attention, and that is usually not a good thing. I'd like to sincerely congratulate you on the efforts you have put into working with others and collaborating on producing fine articles, but I also have a darker message that you need to hear. Your alternate accounts will never again make another edit. This is the only account you will ever use. Additionally, I never want to see another message on this talk page about edit warring. If you find yourself in a dispute you are not to make any reverts but must only work with others on the talk pages, always remembering to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you do not follow this advice you are likely to be indefinitely blocked, and probably not by me either. Please don't bother to object to this message, you are aware of our policies on disruption and blocking, and you also know that I know what I'm talking about. Again I'd like to thank you for working with others. Please leave any reverting to them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
The Used
Unprotected. In future, you're probably better off asking here. GBT/C 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
SilverOrion
Nobody agrees with him, so I think we're good. If he starts changing it his way, we'll just report it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop attacking him with every chance you get. I realize that he is the reason The Used's article got locked, but it's just really annoying. Just ignore him. If he actually tries to change something, you can report him for vandalism or whatever, but until then, just let him go. Also, a little off-topic, but please don't make 50 different sections about the same topic on talk pages, it's really hard to follow. Thanks. -- FatalError 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, we're not friends. I don't know you. Reaching an agreement with me about a Wikipedia article does not make you my friend. Let me just get out of the way. I'm sorry, but the immature way you act with everyone is the reason I wrote that on SilverOrion's talk page. "thats because every1 is wrong, and im right, the way i see it its either my way or my way" ([2]). Those things don't help. Anyway, about SilverOrion..."i make good edits and remove vandalism." You got into an edit war. I do realize that it was mostly SilverOrion's fault, as you must have read in the message I sent him, but you didn't help much by fighting with him. Just silently report him to an admin, no need for a huge war that causes the article to get locked. -- FatalError 22:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
The Used - Grunge
Could you point me to the place in that source that says The Used are grunge? Because I only saw post-grunge in there. Thanks. -- FatalError 00:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well then I'm removing it until you find it. There is nothing about grunge in the current source. -- FatalError 03:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Album article infoboxes
Please read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums for details on how to format infoboxes in album articles. Cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Demos from the Basement
I was wondering why you keep removing the external links. --Pwnage8 (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, album articles usually do link to videos of songs from the album. So you're wrong about that. And I'm not suggesting in the slightest that every song from every album should be linked to, because that violates Wikipedia's external links policy. But this is a demo album, which means it was never meant to be sold. It even says in the article that they gave it away for free. Anyone who's looking for the tracks on this album is obviously a big fan and would have all their records, so the "giving away for free" argument is moot. Wikipedia is a place where people come to find things out, so they would be searching for it if they stumbled upon the page. It's encyclopedic to include the two links, because that version of "Box Full of Sharp Objects" is what got them signed, and "The Taste of Ink" is the one that was changed the most for their debut. They also happen to be the two singles from their first album that are on this one. You're just being elitist because you have a copy of the record. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Reverting good edits
Why is it that, even when no one agrees with you, you still continue to revert any edits that contradict your opinion? Either you didn't read Bill's comment about reliable sources, or you completely ignored it. Either way, stop it. Thanks. -- FatalError 01:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if removing sources "ruins the paragraph", the sources are unreliable, so they must be removed. And we still have 5 genres in the paragraph, so I think it's fine. "it does not matter where th eosurce comes from because there is no official word." Yes, actually, in an encyclopedia it does matter. But anyway, let's continue this discussion in the talk page instead of our user pages. -- FatalError 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Used. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- FatalError 01:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, real mature. I'm not the one that broke the rule and got the article locked, though. -- FatalError 02:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- Really? You sure you know how to count? You made 5 reverts, I made 3. I didn't break the rule. But either way, it doesn't matter. Discuss this on The Used's talk page, not mine. -- FatalError 02:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- they were differnet edits so its ok, USEDfan (talk) 03:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- i did 2 undos, he did 3 undos ( 2 were in the same edit ) so that makes 4 undos. USEDfan (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)