User talk:Mashaunix/Archive 2

This archive contains discussions from 2015.

Electronicore as a metalcore subgenre or not

Hello, Mashaunix (I'm new to being a wikipedia editor, so if this is out of custom or something I apologize) I saw that you undid my change to list of metalcore bands removing the band I See Stars on the grounds that electronicore isn't a direct subgenre of metalcore. I would have to disagree, and it appears that wikipedia does as well. According to the articles for both genres they are connected, and electronicore is a subgenre. Aside from that, I See Stars qualifies as a metalcore band anyway, particularly on Digital Renegade and New Demons. Although that doesn't count for their entire discography, it is the genre the band is focusing on now, and elements of the genre are still found in their previous albums, so I believe that I See Stars should be added. I'm not sure exactly how a dispute of this manner would be settled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zrivers8 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I believe electronicore is a fusion genre of metalcore, post-hardcore and electronic music. Since it is a fusion genre and not a subgenre, I didn't want to include bands that have only been cited by sources as "electronicore" (and not as "metalcore") in the list of metalcore bands, especially because, as I've mentioned in the edit summary of my revert, there's a separate list of electronicore bands; in the same way, there's no deathcore bands on the list even though deathcore is a closely related fusion genre. When you added I See Stars to the list, I checked their article and saw it only mentioned electronicore for their genre and not metalcore. I have no problem with leaving it on the list if you say some of their albums are mainly metalcore, but we should add all genres that they have been described as by reliable sources to the band's main article.

Also, disputes are usually settle exactly like this, on the talk pages of the articles or the users involved.--MASHAUNIX 02:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Washington, D.C. hardcore

What are You on about. Really. What am I on about, well for starters THAT MATERIAL IS IN REGIONAL SCENES. YOU PUT IT THERE. 2601:C:2081:2B30:85AB:A8CA:1B33:B8CA (talk) 01:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just didn't understand your edit because the previous edit that you reverted only fixed a link, it didn't add anything. I now understand what you were getting at. However, I don't see the point; there's no reason why an article can't link to the same thing twice. The link in the infobox and in the appropriate section are fine to both stay in the article.--MASHAUNIX 03:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

its?

I think they double links should all be removed or all be added. its a small percentage that has "for the full article" type links. new york hardcore, Australian etc.. Australia isn't in the related that makes sense to be there new york is there twice. I think it should be even. if its not revert it and who cares. It doesn't bother me that much. I think its a distraction and people should want to read the whole article and not be side tracked with for the full article links every paragraph. However if thats how it should be as far as what is correct here than do it. going to look at another genre now to see how other pages do it. brb 2601:C:2081:2B30:7844:591D:4298:E880 (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed all of them and re-added it. In the most professional way Ive seen. There were two other very Pro ways of wording it. I chose the Best version. looks good reads good provides a deeper perspective while being professional to the Hardcore Punk page. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Well there is no problem with 2 links to the same thing being on the same page (so long as they are in completely different places, not within the same paragraph e.g., per WP:OVERLINK), neither is it necessary to add links. If you want to add links then do it, but there's no need to delete ones that are already there so that all links are used the same number of times; that's why I reverted the initial revert.--MASHAUNIX 05:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

So are you saying that everything doesn't have to have links "evenly". ones that do , do and ones thats don't, don't. ok sounds good. now if I knew why my ip changes whenever the service provider feels like. Id solve that mystery as well. 2601:C:2081:2B30:547E:BC4F:2394:28A5 (talk) 06:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no clue why that happens. Indeed it is a mystery.--MASHAUNIX 07:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mashaunix. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Thrash metal, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 22:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

That whole section (from "Vocally, thrash metal can employ..." until the end of the paragraph) is unsourced. The content that was added didn't make it less or more reliable.--MASHAUNIX 15:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The Beatles Invite

	Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.
Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet! Todo list:

Thanks, but no thanks.--MASHAUNIX 20:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Metalcore

what are you doing. It doesn't need a rewrite, you made a list. the link is at the bottom. goal completed. The intro of the article has been honed down by many. that plain is Horrible. They are not "pioneering" that was deceptive on purpose or coincidence. your attempt at a re-write is Plain Ridiculous. Why do you all of a sudden after like 5 years feel you are the one to change the page when you only sometimes add things worthwhile. Why do you have to constantly go back and change anything. Are you hell bent on only what you write, Do you take the time to actually understand the section or others changes before just going back and making a mess. I mean seriously! 73.193.195.69 (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"from metalcore bands, pioneering ones—such as " Really? You write? You wrote that on a professional page? Does it bother you that those bands are pioneers. The ones listed and everyone on the list is after them? Did you think no one would pick up on the "pioneering metalcore (list) bands" . No they are not pioneers they are part of a list, and no matter who's ass that burns or who likes it or not history with dated releases are unchangeable.

Whats "from metalcore bands pioneering ones" whats "from" do they deliver cakes? was it a delivery that came "from pioneering bands who really aren't pioneering and they we get to the Pioneers? whats the logic there are you straight? we will need someone over there I can see it now and am not getting "baited" in to revert-ville. If you don't know how to do it or are trying to promo some friends bands on a list you seriously have made something completely d- minus material. whats the motivation? You play in a band on the list and wish you were a pioneer? Im not kidding either. Im being very serious.73.193.195.69 (talk) 10:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't really see your point. I just think the list is useful, so I wanted to include a link to it in the lead, because otherwise readers might not realize it exists. If you don't like how I've done it, simply revert me and suggest a better way, or explain why you don't think it should be included. Nothing else to it. Anyway, what do you think about "Out of metalcore bands, pioneering ones..."? That's the second idea I've had to this.--MASHAUNIX 11:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, Thats Horrible "out of metalcore bands". Also makes like 100% of no sense. Its also a really no offense kind of childish for an online encyclopedia page. Did you come up with that on your own? Just kidding. I think, if its not enough to have your list at the bottom and you feel the need to squeeze it in to the text of the article it probably could go here "Welsh metalcore band Bullet for My Valentine's second album........" as long as no one objects to having the words "metalcore band" link to the list. I tried it with a preview= HORRIBLE. If you like it paste this over ""Welsh metalcore band Bullet for My Valentine's second album" You creating work for people to correct your mistakes. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 11:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't work. I don't see what's wrong with what I suggested, as the sentences do make sense and so does the link, but if you don't like it, that's fine. It's not very important.--MASHAUNIX 12:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Demon Hunter. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
First, read MOS:HEADING and Help:Section and tell me what they say. Second, discuss, not edit war. in short, sections that are short are a really bad idea even if you personally like to go to specific sections. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Alright alright, should we discuss the timeline heading thing though? Do you still say that it shouldn't be used in accordance with MOS:HEADING? If yes, could you explain how it's related to the guideline? As I have already stated, in my opinion the timeline heading is useful, since the timeline is an important part of the article and I myself often want to get to it by clicking on it in TOC, and I don't see any disadvantages of having it (except maybe in larger articles with loads of sections, but it probably still wouldn't really be an issue). Right now there doesn't seem to be any consensus as to whether it should be used, with some featured articles not using it, others using it and others using other headings in the band members section as well. We could start a larger discussion on this and attempt to unify its usage or non-usage if you wish.--MASHAUNIX 07:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool

Cool man I appreciate the info. It really helps to define what is used commonly. Thanks.! 73.193.195.69 (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism only account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:202.45.119.34 If so can this be brought to someones attention? You may have more experience with this. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the account has made two edits recently. I posted a warning on the talk page for one of them and if the acount keeps vandalising pages, it'll get blocked soon.--MASHAUNIX 08:51, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

UABB

Why is the members section being added again to the UABB article without proper citations, even though it has been unreferenced for more than one month? --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that although there are no citations, we should give the section the benefit of the doubt and keep it. I find it unlikely that whoever added the info made it up, or lied about it. This is not in line with guidelines, so you can remove it if you want (or comment it out so it doesn't show in the article), but I don't think that's going to improve the article. The current members are also in line in what the band's official Facebook page states.--MASHAUNIX 15:05, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lamb of God & War of Ages

LAMB OF GOD AND WAR OF AGES ARE NOT METALCORE! -HeadCase320

Well that is your opinion, but Wikipedia articles should be based in reliable sources, not original research. You cannot blank a sourced section, as you did in Lamb of God's article, and claim that only opinion is right. Perhaps Lamb of God aren't metalcore; but if some professional reviewers think they are, then that should be included in the article. You can look at it this way: the article doesn't state "facts", it merely states what the opinions of some "experts" on the topic are. As for War of Ages, the genre is only backed by one source. If you don't like the source or don't think the genre should be included for another reason (e.g. the band distancing themselves from it, even though that usually wouldn't be good enough), please explain why.--MASHAUNIX 21:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

thats staying

not only is it staying but it Proves the Direct lineage through all the phases HC went as it grew this band was getting labeled each one. Like a text book example of what metalcore criteria is.Not only that that reference is from Kent McClard the person whom without there may not have been a band named rage against the machine. Very Important to the over all scope of the scene. Thanks Anyway. Like I said already above some of your edits are just pointless and make no sense except like to make something worse. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 06:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

What makes no sense to me is including 2 genres in the infobox which are considered synonymous by many and link to the same page. What exactly, in your opinion, is the difference between metalcore and metallic hardcore? Also, per template:infobox musical artist#genre, infobox genres should be limited to 4, with sources and more detail covered in the text. In this case, I think only metalcore should be included in the infobox and the metallic hardcore label should be mentioned in the style section. I'll try to do it that way later.--MASHAUNIX 14:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

No don't bother. Ill just get someone else involved. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 15:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd still like to hear your view of the difference between metalcore and metallic hardcore though.--MASHAUNIX 15:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"preferably use 2-4." preferably by definition is "Ideally" not Definitively. See how many other editors have been there its not been an issue. How about you define the two, can you define either on your own in your own words. you first what actually do you think you know. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 15:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

you tell me why you feel there is a metallic hardcore section on the metalcore page. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but genres tend not to be separated on Wikipedia unless they have their own page. I would say that metallic hardcore was an older term used for metalcore, and the section of the metalcore article refers to a period of evolution of metalcore when that term was often used. Musically I would say it's pretty much the same thing, but with less melodic death metal influence and less breakdowns than later metalcore. Metalcore, however, is supposed to be a "broadly defined" fusion genre, meaning it can be very diverse so long as it is a fusion of hardcore and extreme metal.--MASHAUNIX 15:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

"preferably use 2-4." 73.193.195.69 (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Well in this case there's really no need to use more than 4. The infobox should cover the most important genres, and the text should go into more detail on them. Anyway, I'll create a draft of how I would like to change the article later and check it with you.--MASHAUNIX 19:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

its not happening. they are all important and at this point Im not going to explain the details why. if you don't know we shouldn't even be discussing it. do you know anything about the history of these genres or are you really in a foreign country and read about it instead of lived and studied it. "preferably use 2-4." its not wasting digital ink and explains upfront immediately after the opening paragraph these words are sources are all referenced. Its not a question of maybe. All those genres that band has been classed as. period. none more none less. that anyone has dug up. "preferably 2-4" means what ? If there is ONE, thats fine , USUALLY at least two, not USUALLY more than four, but not exclusively four, FIVE is one more. I think what you are doing more than likely is seeing if I have interest in that page. Looked for something to erase hoping you could try and figure something out. Ill tell you this, wait til I start editing California hardcore bands and I move again. Then see if you think you know who I am. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with you whatsoever. I just have an idea of how infoboxes should cover genres that I'm trying to apply here.--MASHAUNIX 20:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

And seriously! if you REALLY don't understand this stuff. Either stop wasting peoples time and work on stuff you know well enough to figure out and memorize, at LEAST, the "basics", OR ask me to explain a few things One, at a Time, and when I have time with in a day or two I will. I just don't have time right now to analyze are you needing someone to "talk" to or do you really not understand, in which If you are the latter or at reasonably the latter I will explain some ROOT Points not too too in depth. Ill learn you/teach you a few things. Not today. I also suggest that to not edit or get into it with people when you aren't extremely versed and had perhaps HOURS/DECADES by your-self to put it all together with also recorded history as your footing, owning maybe hundreds of chronological recordings in the genre and even knowing which people played in different bands who are notable, a Ton of it, what labels they are/were on who ran them, everything. You're wasting peoples time that way. You should really engage with those when you have a shared or equal knowledge so things go smoothly. If you don't know why not just read the person reply and learn from that. Then have time to process it and see how it all fits in the Big Picture. Its not "unhelpful" unless you need to learn but you also have to read and maybe ask people who are older than you their opinions watch some movies about hc punk get your own knowledge. It will help your edits.

This is how it translates. Logically, Accurately. "preferably 2-4" means- If there is ONE, thats fine , USUALLY at least two, not USUALLY more than four, but not exclusively four, FIVE is one more. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Your edits on Sepultura

Hey, I think that "heavy metal" should be changed back to "metal" because heavy metal isn't present on the infobox as a genre.-Teh Thrasher 05:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well in my opinion, metal and heavy metal mean the same thing in music, and I think that is how we understand the terms on Wikipedia: we don't have 2 separate pages for them, but we have a separate page for traditional heavy metal. Therefore, groove metal, thrash metal and other genres that Sepultura has been considered are all subgenres of heavy metal, and it can be used in the lead to summarise Sepultura's style just as well as simply "metal".--MASHAUNIX 13:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I just thought of metal as a more appropriate label for the band, since heavy metal isn't anywhere on the infobox. I mean, if you look at Machine Head's page, they're also labeled as "metal", and that maybe because there also isn't any mention of heavy metal on the infobox as well. Of course, it's not that important, since metal and heavy metal are technically the same thing, but unless there is a mention of heavy metal as a genre on Sepultura's infobox, my opinion is that it should be changed back to metal.-Teh Thrasher 16:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think you missed my point. Thrash metal and groove metal are IMO subgenres of "heavy metal" just as much as they are subgenres of "metal" because we consider "heavy metal" and "metal" to be the same thing. There's no need to have "heavy metal" in the infobox, just as there's no need to have "metal" in the infobox, in order for a band to be "heavy metal"; it's just used to summarise the various subgenres that the band plays. The question here is whether we should prefer "heavy metal" or "metal" when summarising, and from what I've seen, genres are usually addressed by their full names when first mentioned in articles.--MASHAUNIX 16:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I would be in favor of changing it to "heavy metal" in Machine Head's article as well, but I want to hear your view on this first.--MASHAUNIX 16:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This issue is probably similar to shortening "hardcore punk" to "hardcore" or "punk rock" to "punk". For example, if a band's infobox featured the genres "skate punk", "anarcho-punk" and "Christian punk", I would summarise their genre in the lead as "punk rock", but someone else could simply use "punk".--MASHAUNIX 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't wanna sound elitist or whatever, and I get your point, but I'm clearly against of changing metal to heavy metal on Machine Head's page, just like I'm against the Sepultura change. Please let me know if I'm wrong or anything, as I'm still pretty much a beginner here, but that's just how I see it.-Teh Thrasher 08:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, you might be right, just explain your point of view. Why do you prefer "metal" to "heavy metal"? The reason why my preference is the other way around is because I like the use the full names of genres (when first used in an article) and because I like to be consistent, and since WP assumes "metal" and "heavy metal" to be the exact same thing, I don't see a reason to use one over the other for different reasons. We could discuss this at WP:HMM.--MASHAUNIX 11:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you're right. I shouldn't have started this discussion at all, and maybe it makes me seem like a genre warrior. After all, metal and heavy metal are the exactly same thing.-Teh Thrasher 13:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I might run it by them later anyway to see what others think.--MASHAUNIX 14:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

most of that is being removed.

Ill show you how in a bit. very poor, name dropping in Characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.193.195.69 (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Metallic hardcore

Metallic hardcore has been added minus the amateur way it was over there at hatebreed page. Whomever added it the way not sure. Just a heads up. help find the reference for j. ramone. if you can. you are most likely the IP on the talk page before. Doesn't matter to me of you were. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool, feel free to explain to me what you don't like about my last edit on Hatebreed. And nope, not me, I don't know anything about the Ramones' influence on hc.--MASHAUNIX 13:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

all you've done there is take this With references

Hatebreed is an American metalcore band from Connecticut, formed in 1994. Their sound blends crossover thrash with hardcore punk.[1][2][3][4][5] The band was part of the mid 1990s metallic hardcore scene along with other bands like Earth Crisis, All Out War, Integrity and Converge.[6] The band's frontman Jamey Jasta refers to the band's style as 'Celtic Frost hardcore'.[7]|

and for some reason aped this:

Hogan's Heroes[7] was an American hardcore punk band[8] formed in New Jersey in 1984. During their time they recorded three full lengths for California label New Red Archives. They have been considered as classic hardcore[9] and seminal[10] in guitar orientated styles[11] such as skate punk[3][12] and metal.[2][13] They were also a part of the original crossover thrash scene.[5] The band broke up in 1993.

to this version

Hatebreed is an American metalcore band from Connecticut, formed in 1994. They are considered to have contributed to the development of the genre in the mid to late 1990s, having emerged as part of the 1990s metallic hardcore scene along with other bands such as Earth Crisis, Converge, All Out War and Shai Hulud. Their musical style blends influences from hardcore punk and extreme metal while also drawing inspiration from crossover thrash.

you removed 7 sources. In doing so. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Its also not even close to how professional it used to be. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I created a new section in the text, Musical style and influences, and moved the sources to it (from the first paragraph you cited, the second one wasn't in the version I edited, so someone must have removed it before I even came to the article).--MASHAUNIX 23:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Falling in Reverse

Can you keep an eye on the Falling in Reverse article? Editors won't leave the genres alone, despite being sourced. I opened up a talk page discussion regarding genres here Talk:Falling in Reverse#Genre Discussion. Despite that, editors continue changing the genre field without any input there. 75.129.101.158 (talk) 10:08, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, it should be fine since you added the note, but I'm watching it now.--MASHAUNIX 14:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

OK you want to play edit war

Taking this up somewhere else. Also the band is a Pioneer. doesn't have to be a "person" , reporting this not dealing with this. Bye. 73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

there is going to be a discussion about your removal of sourced material

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#this_person_is_removing_sourced_material 73.193.195.69 (talk) 00:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know.--MASHAUNIX 00:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

OK, the thing is, I didn't remove any sourced material, or any sources at all. I added a new section (musical style and influences) to the article and moved all the sources to it, and changed the text I moved to reflect the sources appropriately. I explained all this in my original edit summary: "moved details on musical style and scenes to separate section, changed info to reflect sources cited, changed lead and infobox genres to reflect this info, adding comments that explain this". You can find all this in the revision history of the article.--MASHAUNIX 00:34, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

As for the metalcore edit, a band can't be called "a pioneer", but should instead be called "a pioneering band". "Pioneer" indicates a single person. You could say that "the members of the bands were pioneers", but there's really nothing wrong with the caption as I left it.--MASHAUNIX 01:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey man

Sorry for my edit on list of groove metal bands. I just found a source on a 90s album of Napalm Death (forgot which one) and thought of adding it without properly looking at it.-Teh Thrasher 18:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Influence in Heavy Metal Music

Hi Mashaunix. I thought it was better to explain this here, rather than do another revert, or a lot of dummy edits. I know it is often found on the internet and some journalism, but it is not possible to "draw influence" in this case because influence as a noun means the ability to change or determine something, so that would mean taking the ability to influence. As verb it can be passive, as in "were influenced by", or the sentence could be rearranged to be active and say "these thing influenced the other" - however, this might be a bit confusing as it would mean separating the subject (the new genres) by a new subject (the ones they were influenced by) and in these cases it is normal to stay in the passive voice. So I think it has to be "which are influenced by extreme metal and hardcore punk, and [[nu metal]". I hope that explains this one.--SabreBD (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for enlightening me.--MASHAUNIX 23:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. The latest one looks fine to me. Many thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Associated acts

Selective inclusion, which I've worked on so I'm quite familiar with. What you should have quoted

• Other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

(emphasis mine). They only shared the tracks on one split. They didn't collaborate to release the album. They recorded the tracks independently but their label released it as a single album. They did not collaborate. Feel free to ask on the template's talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, sorry about reverting you for the second time just now, as I didn't read this message yet. The definition of collaboration does indeed not support my edit in this case. However, I don't think I was wrong to omit "on multiple ocassions", as the template uses "or", and it might thus just as well state "other acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, and other acts with which this act has collaborated on an album"; the meaning is the same. I also clearly indicated the omission with "...". Nevertheless, sorry for the second revert, and thanks for explaining this.--MASHAUNIX 04:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I also would have quoted the entire thing, but had to shorten it to fit it into my edit summary.--MASHAUNIX 04:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Walter, your reasoning makes sense, I won't contest this.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on As I Lay Dying (band). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection.
You have chosen to edit war when you're in the wrong. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mashaunix. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums.
Message added 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

FAC input

Hi! Since you're an experienced contributor to music articles, would you be interested in reviewing my FAC for the article xx (album)? It's received some attention, but another editor's input would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 08:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Blessthefall. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. It meets WP:V but it does not meet any other guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I did give a valid reason for removing the template. The source is not problematic as per WP:SELFSOURCE and therefore the template is not needed. Please explain why you disagree.--MASHAUNIX 19:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I saw the reason, but the issue isn't that self-published sources are not allowed but that a better source should be found. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is a better source needed if this one is in line with guidelines? A better source isn't needed to establish that the info is true, and the notability of the band has already been established. Right now the template is abundant in the article.--MASHAUNIX 14:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If your point is that there's no need to remove the template, then fine. I'm sure another source is already available to back this up.--MASHAUNIX 16:18, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Be back in a bit.

Ill be back in a bit not long at all. I have to do something real quick. you can delete this I wanted to give you a heads up. Then w can go back to talk page discussions. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks, I hope we can reach an agreement on the "other topics" issue.--MASHAUNIX 13:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I saw that you were able to edit The Devil Wears Prada (band) and I had actually made a timeline for it but i saw that it was not allowed to be edited. Is it possible to insert a timeline in it? Thanks MetaLover21 (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There is a timeline in the article now. Are there any changes you want made to it?--MASHAUNIX 19:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

In Flames

Mashaunix mate-death metal and alternative metal are a sub-genres of heavy metal music.Please stop,or we can play edit war again.Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenixSVK (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Then why bands like Slayer or Metallica are trash metal bands? That is sub-genre of heavy metal music ! Go and change it right now ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FenixSVK (talk • contribs) 09:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the genre in the lead section (where it says "[band] is a [genre] band" should be as accurate as possible. For In Flames, some sources call them a melodic death metal band, while others call them an alternative metal band (especially on their newer work); both melodeath and alt-metal are both based in heavy metal, and therefore heavy metal is included in the lead section to summarise, even though no sources argue they are a traditional heavy metal band. This is done often; for example, System of a Down's lead section says they are a rock band to summarize various genres they have been called (which are all descended from rock music), even though no one argues they have a classic rock sound. On the other hand, Slayer are now only considered thrash metal, so their lead only says thrash metal.--MASHAUNIX 14:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean up

can we delete this section, and can you make this better Barry and the Penetrators 73.193.195.69 (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what exactly you're asking me to do, but I've cleaned up the article. If you want to add references, Google search the band and see if there are any professional works (reviews, articles) about them.--MASHAUNIX 07:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Thats great. Also can you read overview and history. If you have time. I think you did Fantastic work on it. More than I imagined. Some of it isn't written right. I am biased on this type of music. So I can't edit it. You'll see what I mean if you read overview and history. Its not written encyclopedic. Add to it erase things whatever can make it Encyclopedic and again thank you.73.193.195.69 (talk) 08:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd rather edit other articles now, as I don't even know this band. Reliable sources are really the most important thing about editing a text, if you use them, other editors can clean up after you easily.--MASHAUNIX 10:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Death metal

Please stop..for some days there was peace..now there is the war again-only for irelevant things-It's the same only it is changed..Wikipedia must has very exactly informations.You're right,it is a sub-genre of heavy metal,but in lead there gonna be melodic death metal-I assure you-melodic death metal and classic death metal are two different styles... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.103.130.123 (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I never suggested they were the same style. What is it you want me to stop?--MASHAUNIX 17:05, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"never done"

You mean like this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_May_I that you edit fairly regularly with Two Different Sizes. Consistency is a Good thing. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say. Is this in reference to the edit on Hogan's Heroes? If so, how is it related to Miss May I?--MASHAUNIX 13:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok you don't understand. You'll understand if you read it again and go to the page with the link provided. When you write little notes as you follow my edits....maybe just do a constructive edit and make a short summary of the edit. We aren't having a "conversation" in the edit history. An Administrator already said to not do that. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

We can have a conversation here though. I did go to the Miss May I page. How is it related to Hogan's Heroes (assuming that's what this message is about)?--MASHAUNIX 14:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You wrote "to me" in the edit history about "hyphens". If you go to "miss may I" with the link provided above you will see two different sizes. Whats to not understand again?. I don't understand. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Two different sizes of what? And why would you put a space before the hyphen?--MASHAUNIX 15:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"shai huld"

There is now a discussion on the talk page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metalcore#.22shai_hulud.22 . As usual as per an Administrator you use the talk page before reverting or edit warring. See you there. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

USA

USA means United States. Just in case you didnt know. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you want to use the abbreviation, OK, but to be grammatically correct, the sentence needs to include "the" and "in" ("performing in the USA in 1990" rather than "performing in USA 1990"). Also, countries should generally not be linked per WP:OVERLINK, so there is no need to link USA.--MASHAUNIX 15:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the abbreviation is not OK. See WP:NOTUSA. WP:OVERLINKing is not OK either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

from the way you push POV, genre war and other Questionable and deceptive edits. I can't ever go by your word or opinion. Also the other edits were good with linking the state. Your use of generally means not much to me at all. You seem emotionally involved. Ever see how some editors edit pages that they want in their edit history. I have. its laughable. Id say have a nice day but being you're 98% mad, I know you more than likely won't do anything else all day except this stuff. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't have to go by my word or opinion, only to study WP:OVERLINK and the basic rules of English grammar. I am trying to improve the encyclopaedia, and discuss disputes with you when needed. There is no need to make it personal.--MASHAUNIX 16:21, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you care to spare a minute, please answer the questions I asked on User_talk:Mashaunix#.22never_done.22.--MASHAUNIX 16:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Its been like that since 2011 or 2012. I need time to read it and Fully understand it. I did skim through it. Its fine for now. I will read it and know what to do next. There is also a discussion on "easycore' the genre you edit warred about on no less than 7 or so pages. You should probably participate being you have had so much invested interest in a the name of a tour being a "genre". Right? If you go to the top of "easycore" the notification has a link. There is also one about your edit on Metalcore talk page as per the link above. I am never taking things personal. When I get a chance Ill see if I can answer whatever you asked. I don't remember currently what it was. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are making things personal when you call me "98% mad" etc., but whatever. The part of WP:OLINK I was referring to says "Specifically, unless they are particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are not usually linked: ... the names of major geographic features and locations, languages, common occupations, and religions..." (this would include the USA in this case). The questions I asked are just above this discussion on my talk page, at User_talk:Mashaunix#.22never_done.22. Thanks for pointing out the easycore discussion, I have noticed it already and might contribute later.--MASHAUNIX 16:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember when you linked "easycore" to metalcore and typed this in the summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=669365022&oldid=668682589, its exactly the kind of POV you usually do while "trying to improve the encyclopaedia(sic)" CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Remember stating it was a "fusion genre" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=669365243&oldid=669365022 and pushing POV, though none of the earliest bands have any metalcore at their Origin. The bands that were right on the "easycore" page. You must have done at least 75 edits like this I could dig up. It was already removed you Insisted it was something its not and never has been. CombatMarshmallow

Thats just One genre. Theres better ones. Wikipedia is not for pushing POV. Yet I can find probably a hundred times you've done just that. Despite what is true. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I do push POV sometimes, usually against other POV though.--MASHAUNIX 16:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So to you it makes sense you push POV with Most of your edits. Ok. Cool. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't say most of my edits, but that's for you to decide. Anyway, can I go through with the changes to Hogan's Heroes, or is there something else you don't like about them?--MASHAUNIX 17:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Would you like probably a Hundred+ instances to you pushing POV displayed here? Anyway what does it say above? Also "generally" look it up. So can I post from easycore, captain chunk, groove metal, metalcore, and other places where you clearly pushed POV despite what is actually true, right here for anyone to see what your motivations have been? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So lets get this clear, It doesn't bother you that you don't read references and change things to what they Clearly do not state and say genres are relative that aren't but the "USA" link bothers you. Is that about right? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So NWOBHM was "not Relative" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=632614797&oldid=632590984 though the first group clearly states it as an influence? Isn't that what you stated when you removed it? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 17:56, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Even though the page "article" and groups listed contradicted this, "easycore" you added as a fusion genre anyway. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=657403370&oldid=655648073 remember. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding a list of bands that you created to the Topics section when clearly a list isn't a Topic isn't pushing POV? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=633954168&oldid=633862985 Am I understanding that correctly? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

How is sludge metal relative again? You added it to other topics https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=650903184&oldid=650902813 not understanding that one except more POV. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

removing NWOBHM when Clearly the first band has stated it as an influence and re-adding your list of bands isn't pushing POV? Again. In case you don't remember https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=671297527&oldid=671152020 theres your edit. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Re-adding your list to topics again when a List is Not a Topic. Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metalcore&diff=671393302&oldid=671301021 in case you don't remember. This is Just One page. One genre. This is what Ive seen you do all over Wikipedia. How you've been under the radar for so long is surprising. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:25, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The "first band that was formed was influenced by metalcore", you re-added metalcore https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Easycore&diff=669363359&oldid=669362729 despite this not being true. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Pushing POV here as like other bands you've done the same thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Day_to_Remember&diff=prev&oldid=658823829 Despite being told you can't put this in the Lead. Is that a part of " trying to improve the encyclopaedia(sic)"? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

If you need a refresher I can populate this page with a few feet of Edits you've done, pushing POV as usual, with disregard for what is actually true. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 18:45, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You didn't have to go through the effort of linking all those here. I know what edits I've done; some of them were indeed POV. If you think my edits are disruptive and "under the radar", report me. Until then, can you tell me if I can go through the edits I proposed to Hogan's Heroes, and if not, what is it you don't like about them? Also, please go to User_talk:Mashaunix#.22never_done.22 and answer my questions at the bottom. Thanks.--MASHAUNIX 19:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The effort. It was a breeze. You've been steady doing this for a Year Straight. So what are you doing POV Pushing for at Wikipedia and How does that help the accuracy. Also like I said you care about if "usa" is linked but not pushing POV. Also "generally" do you know what that means. Ill have to give you another 50. At minimum. I don't have to "report" anything/ people will see what you've been doing and if They don't eventually Ill link them here. Hows that. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

You are an editor with less time at Wikipedia and one who Generally edit wars to push POV and is Dishonest Much of the time. Most everything you do is for POV. Ive been watching you do this for a Long Long Time. The best part is eventually people just changed your POV off the page. Also Good Idea. Populate this and Share with Administration. Thanks for the idea. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This "doesn't make sense" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=New_Wave_of_American_Heavy_Metal&diff=prev&oldid=675266878 but is right there in the book. You are like a small bump in the road of Honest Helpful editing. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 21:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

"What is the point" of putting a list where lists go because a list is not a Topic https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hardcore_punk&diff=671716476&oldid=671346568 you didnt care to know Just to push POV. Again. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:01, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

So here at hatebreed https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatebreed&diff=next&oldid=651267464 you stated you "didn't remove any sources or material, just moved them" but the sources went from 22 to 19. Interesting. Pushing POV like usual. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Really you added to hatebreed that "They are considered to have helped pioneer metalcore in the mid-1990s" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatebreed&diff=next&oldid=650014863 Despite knowing Metalcore was started 10 years earlier. Interesting....CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Collect evidence all you want, but please discuss Hogan's Heroes with me further. You left me with no answer to my questions.--MASHAUNIX 06:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of what. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 11:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

That you want 25-50 more examples? Ok. I thought you got the point but ok. Ill collect more. When I get around to it, Ill further remind you. Your POV efforts are against wikipedia. Everything it stands for. Deceptive edits are a Big no no. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 11:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, but can we please continue the previous discussion?--MASHAUNIX 12:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion? Those Questions above. Sure Ill read your replies. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought you stated you never removed any references. Maybe Im wrong. heres the link https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hatebreed&diff=next&oldid=651267464 I can't remember exactly. I know you stated none were removed...well instead of trying to remember there is what you stated. Ill read it too.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

On this one You state you don't know how it "goes against lead but Whatever" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Day_to_Remember&diff=prev&oldid=659234449 . Thats interesting. What does "whatever" mean to you in this context? CombatMarshmallow (talk) 03:31, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

is this it.

http://www.blabbermouth.net/news/bring-me-the-horizon-to-release-thats-the-spirit-album

No, [this is it http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bring-me-the-horizon-on-ditching-metalcore-for-poppy-positive-new-lp-20150723]. I'll add a direct ref so it's clear what the statement is based in. This Rolling Stone article says BMTH's style is no longer "undeniably rooted in metal" and now has a "sound full of ebb-and-flow dynamics inspired by indie rock, alternative music and pop", and says there has been an "evolution from artsy metalcore to cinematic pop rock" for the band. I changed the statement wording because the source article never said that they play "pop rock inspired by alternative and indie rock" but rather listed indie, alternative and pop as 3 sources of influence and called their style pop rock separately. If you want, change the wording to your liking, but I think the meaning should be kept in line with the source.--MASHAUNIX 04:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Please start discussions on the talk page

Multiple editors - at least 3 now - have voiced concern over your rewording of the lead at That's the Spirit. Please follow WP:BRD and discuss on the talk page, rather than just continually reverting to your preferred version. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for reminding me. Although I didn't only revert but also offered new versions, there should be a discussion on the talk page; I'll start it.--MASHAUNIX 10:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Album genres

I really agree with what you had to say to Andrzejbanas about album genres. I want to add that if an edit is made with no reference but is correct, why should u still be reprimanded about not providing references. I think it's ridiculous that everything has to be referenced. The are some things that are as clear as day in that whatever you are editing is relevant to the edit you make. J.A.F (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Its because using reliable sources is the foundation of the entire website, and quite frankly, any time something is "clear as day", it should be extremely easy to find a source to prove it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources should be used. I was only discussing one exception; in my opinion, if a source discusses a band's genre, it should be sufficient to reference the genre of a record by the band in the absence of other sources discussing the record's genre in particular, unless there is consensus that the style of the record is different to their usual style.--MASHAUNIX 10:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mathcore talk page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathcore#List_of_Metalcore_bands in case you want to participate. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Done. I would be more interested in wikimeets if they had specific themes or workshops, so I'd be sure to learn something interesting and useful in relation to my work as a Wikipedian. Just an idea though.--MASHAUNIX 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Whats going on

How are things.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pretty good, thanks for asking. My term is starting though, so I'll have less time to edit Wikipedia (though I might do work on articles related to my studies). How are you yourself?--MASHAUNIX 19:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Im good! You're welcome. Just wanted to say me and you have never always agreed, but have agreed to disagree when appropriate and never carried on in any less than professional ways, if or after we may have disagreed. I want to thank you for that. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 15:28, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that you have a really strong desire to improve the encyclopaedia and that you know a lot about the topics you edit on, and I always try to assume good faith when discussing things with you. But sometimes it gets hard, because it can seem like you mix feelings into it, and discussions with you can be unpleasant and unrewarding. Judging by your talk page, other users have been noticing it too. If you care for my advice at all, I think you should show more appreciation for other people's opinions. When there's a dispute over something, try to explain your point of view to the other person as best you can, and try to understand theirs as best you can, then come to some kind of agreement. Quite a few times I have just given up because I felt you were not actually interested in what I had to say at all and could not be convinced to reconsider your stance.--MASHAUNIX 18:07, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, If you are talking about lists in topic sections that is simple by definition a list isn't a topic. We could have agreed with putting where you had it but it does clearly say "Other Topics". I do definitely understand other opinions whenever someone takes the time to explain what it is they mean. I do appreciate basically any advice. Any that I can learn from is even better. All is taken in to some consideration at minimum. I listen to big band, 80s and 90s rap, jazz like nat king cole trio, thrash, jack teagarden, a Whole Lot of different stuff, I only edit on about 6 or 7 genres that I know a lot about. I wouldn't dare step in to genres or debate about stuff I don't know, Inside and out. I think its great that you noticed I know a lot about the genres I edit. At a few more than most people who edit them, at others enough to make a positive contribution. However without getting in to anything negative, the whole point was or is me and you we make our points we agree or disagree and its as far as it goes. Thats the Positive part. I didnt "create" any of the sources and Hogan's Heroes is for a fact a Pioneer. You know like I do Built to Last is the first Worldwide Distributed metalcore album you wrote something similar about that yourself. I saw it on the metalcore talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metalcore#Cultural_origins I have edited Captain Beyond, Buddy Holly, Hogan's Heroes, and a total of 215 unique pages, with a 91% edit summary usage. My edits are done whenever I notice something can be better. I don't have a conflict of interest. If you see the edits I made at metalcore, for instance those are all bonafied different web pages. They all say Pioneer. I didnt force those sites to say that and I found probably a good 200 more. The main point was I kind of like you from your edits and just because we haven't always agreed we never got negative. Not for any amount of time, which equals Maturity. I like debating and with me and you, or anyone, what can be misconstrued as maybe Im "angry" is really like , lets brainstorm and debate. Its all friendly to me. So anyhow Im not taking back my Thank You, that is the whole point I started this discussion here. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 22:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, cool. I don't think you manipulated any sources, and I respect you completely as an editor. As for the other topics thing, I just don't get your argument. For the infobox, "other topics" should, in my opinion, pretty much mean "other articles that provide information that the reader might consider interesting and useful in relation to this article". Including a list of bands in such a section for a genre's infobox is beneficial to the reader, because such a list is directly relevant and including a link to it shows the reader that it exists and allows them to access it straightaway. Don't see why we need to get held up about the meanings of the words "list" and "topic" when it serves no actual purpose.--MASHAUNIX 03:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Recent pope listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Recent pope. Since you had some involvement with the Recent pope redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 02:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. --MASHAUNIX 02:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Invite to join band member / timeline discussion

Hey there. I notice you have edited band member sections/timelines, and I would like you to come join the current discussion happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians#Create Member Section/Timeline Standards that may finally result in a standard for various items related to band member listings and timelines. Thanks in advance for any contributions you may have! — DLManiac (talk) 23:19, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Heaven Nightclub

Hello, Mashaunix. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Heaven Nightclub, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Admiral Alvin (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)