User talk:Blipblip

Hello, Blipblip, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London After Midnight (band)

Do not put protected tags on articles like that. The article is not protected and there is no reason for it to be so. Other editors may not be so willing to assume good faith and think that you are trying to take ownership of the article. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London After Midnight (band)

hey genius, please stop stunting the progress of the aforementioned article by removing sourced material. with edits to inferior versions such as this.[1] - Deathrocker 23:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources available on the net for what you are claiming though. I'd have no problem at all with them being included if you could provide suitable sources... but you can't, whereas I can. - Deathrocker 23:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

24 hours. 3RR violation on London After Midnight (band). You reverted 5 times in under 24 hours. Thatcher131 02:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

London After Midnight (band)

Your edits to this article violate an important wikipedia policy on verifiability. Claims must be backed up be reliable sources. Your statement that Allmusic's entry on this band is "wrong" is a problem, because you need reliable sources for your assertions. If Allmusic is wrong and you have no other source, you can't say it. Sources do not have to be on line; it could be an interview in a magazine, for example. The band's own web site may be used carefully as a source for non-controversial information, but if there is a dispute, you must find reliable sources or leave it out. Thatcher131 02:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking

By the way, when you are blocked you can still edit your own talk page to leave messages for other users or to request help. Thatcher131 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block reduced to 8 hours for first offense per e-mail. Thatcher131 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some reading

here are some links you may find useful.

General help

Help:Contents/Getting started

Specific policies

(For example, if the band does not want to label itself with a genre, but reliable sources such as record reviews do label them, the label may be included)

Thatcher131 04:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to try reading the article before making such claims. I changed the opening paragraph to read.

"London After Midnight (otherwise known as, LAM) is a rock music band formed in 1990[1] by frontman and instrumentalist Sean Brennan.^{[citation needed]} For the majority of the band's history it featured keyboardist player Tamlyn."

Personally I have only read sources (after researching) which have stated the band have featured Tamlyn & Brennan from 1990. (the year they formed) and then Areklett on bass from 92. You claimed otherwise yet cannot back up what you say, thus the need for the "citation needed" tag.

"Destroyed the bio" haha, you must be joking there? I am the only one who has provided something in the way of a biography... specific festivals the band have played, with whom, their beginings & progression from Los Angeles club level, etc. Even correcting the formating (as I have experience working on band articles here, and know the formating) What have you provided that is biographical?.. a variation which is largely ripped from the band's site.[2] With some random praise from certain media sections thrown in.

I don't know, nor care what your problem with Covet & Areklett is. But the information I put is sourced from their official page, you refuted the information and claimed that London After Midnight have stated otherwise in regards to the Covet material. So I put;

"Covet band claim to feature songs which were original planned to be used in London After Midnight (something Brennan denies^{[citation needed]}),"

I have actually bent to include your POV, yet you refuse to work with anybody else on a variation, reverting hard work, which is very irritating. The only thing you seem to want to see is an "London After Midnight are TEH_BESTEST_BAND_EVA" article. Please read the NPOV policy because that is not acceptable by it. It has to be neutral and factual. Why you insist on blanking sections of the bands history is beyond me, it really is. - Deathrocker

Correcting you

Live music is entirely different to what is put out on a record; if you were fetching refreshments for the band as you claim, then you'd know this.

Please show me any pre-1996 reviews which describe LAM as "industrial", there aren't any. There are however, reviews from the release of Psycho Magnet onwards which describe the band as so.... the same year Marilyn Manson released Antichrist Superstar and two years after Nine Inch Nails released The Downward Spiral both of which were popular.

Alot of the L.A. scene moved towards industrial & darkwave at this time, I should know. It was not the style LAM experimented with prior to that.

I have read what you said... and all I have seen is somebody claiming to know what they're talking about, yet not proving it. You can't even provide a source for the stuff you claim, you just give a vague destination (which I've searched and found nothing)... unless you can provide a direct link, I'd refrain from acting in a bad faith, smarmy manner while addressing somebody who is trying to improve the article. - Deathrocker 05:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misconceptions as to why I would be editing a band page. You do not know whether I like the band or not, you're just being presumptious and taking things I have said out of context. Why would I bother editing an article if I wanted to decrease the value of it?.. simple answer. I wouldn't.

1. I did not say London After Midnight ripped off MM, notice how you skirted carefully around NIN, but OK. Undeniably from Psycho Magnet onwards there were elements of industrial rock in both music and fashion that weren't there before (coincidentally or not, Industrial rock was at its peak in popularity around this time in 96). I don't have objections with you removing those band's names from the article but it is revelant to the article that industrial rock was at its peak in popularity at the time.

And the source you quoted half a sentence from is incorrect. Nine Inch Nails & Marilyn Manson formed in 1989, London After Midnight formed in 1990. (You can find this out merely by visiting their articles)

2. And what is your reason for removing important parts of the band's history? The band started in the goth/death rock club scene in L.A. The club you even mentioned Helter Skelter (where they played their first ever show) is the premier gothic rock club in LA.... what logical reason would you have to blank such information from the article?

They also covered a song from Nightmare Before Christmas, that is uneniable, why remove it from the article? You do not have to revert a whole version of an article just because you have a problem with one sentence.

3. I have read what you have written. I don't see what me being banned once or twice has to do with anything, but whatever. It is not my priority to come up with sources for things you have claimed; that is down to you. If you can come up with a direct source with Brennan saying "London After Midnight is essentially a solo band, with live musicians" then I don't not object to such information being incorporated into the article. I am willing to work with you on this but it is like talking to a brick wall.

And your blanking of Arklette's history in the band is unacceptable. He is a former member, fact. The source I cited for the Covet info was from an official site, fact. If London After Midnight have a different side of the story, then directly source it and include it along side. That is called a NPOV. - Deathrocker 07:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: your last blanking

Maybe it is YOU who has the problem. You're jumping at everything in a parnoid manner, acting like every sentence is aiming to be an attack on that band (which isn't the case at all). You have the nerve to call me a "poor writer" when you refuse to contribute ANYTHING that isn't slanted headily towards praise of said article topic?

After your latest straight out revert and removal of sourced hard work.[3] I'm reporting you for trolling, hopefully it will lead to a ban or some stern advice which will make you re-think your editing actions. I have attempted very hard to aproach you to work on this, listening to your POV, incorporating elements that you have stated... yet you just straight out revert it all, whatever; I'e lost patience with you, but I'm not getting dragged into an editing war. - Deathrocker 08:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the fact that everything you just replied with was untruthful. We'll see. As I said, it has been reported now, so it will be on the road to being sorted out... as evidently, attempting to work with you gets nobody anywhere here. You really should take some time to read the policies before you make your next edit, period. - Deathrocker 09:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks against User:Deathrocker

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LAM

Some quick comments because I theoretically am at work now.

Please try and find some outside help for the article. I don't think Blipblip yet has a handle on what makes a good article, and he has conflict of interest issues. Deathrocker is perhaps overly aggressive in removing material and has revert limitations. Some other editors would provide additional perspective and could rescue parts of Blipblip's contributions that are worth rescuing.
Bibliographic citations need at a minimum the name of the source (like a magazine), date and page number. Including the article title and author name are preferred, like this: (Jan Wenner, "Rock sucks." Rolling Stone, June 31, 2007, page 44). Linking to the magazine's homepage is of no value—direct link to the article if it is freely available on line, otherwise don't link at all, just give the bibliographic details. Linking to transcripts on another web site is prohibited unless the site has permission to repost the information. Transcripts of magazine articles are probably copyright violations and we do not link to external sites that violate copyright. Again, provide the bibliographic information.
If a magazine publishes an interview, and the band's web site posts the "longer, unedited" version, the parts that are only in the band's version fall under the Self-published sources section of the reliable source policy.
Blipblip and Deathrocker need to talk about some of the disputed information on the article talk page for others to evaluate and make the edits. I am thinking specifically here about the issue of whether the band is a one-man project (kind of like Boston (band)) or a multi-person band; and the issue of the former bass player. I think it would be acceptable to discuss the issue of the bass player using Brennan and Areklett personal blogs as sources, since they are writing about themselves, but I would like a third opinion on that. In any case, the Neutral point of view policy requires that if the issue is dicussed, both sides need to be presented fairly. If an outside reader can detect the wikipedia article taking sides in the matter, that is a violation. It would be better to report what some third party reliable source has to say about the matter, if one can be found.
Deathrocker can not revert the article more than once per day or twice per week, but he can make useful edits that are not reversions. For example, the current version is poorly wikified, and the references need to formatted per WP:FOOTNOTES. Some additions that you might disagree with in the long run could still be rewritten for style and tone without removing significant content. And of course discuss it on the talk page. Of course, if the net result of many minor formatting edits is to reduce the article back to Deathrocker's perferred version, or something close to it, that's a revert violation, but he know that. He may prefer to play it safe and see if any outside editors agree with him. (Even people with whom he argues on some topics but who are knowledgable about music might be helpful here--hint hint.)

I'll look in on this over the weekend and see how you are doing. Thatcher131 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to London After Midnight (band)

Your recent edit to London After Midnight (band) (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new version using elements of both your and my input. It was suggested to me by Thatcher that I fix the formatting, etc(such as the magazine references, as you aren't familar with it). This has also been done.

Please do not just "revert" the entire article, if there are elements you have a problem with, discuss it... and we can sort specific wording out to have in the article, once a concencus has been achieved. - Deathrocker 03:34, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying every band (sorry, “project”) who use elements of DIY or politics is somehow part of punk rock is as ignorant as claiming any band who has ever worn black are goth. It is a music form, with musical characteristics.

Black Sabbath wear black, they're not goth. U2, Kanye West and Michael Jackson are politically involved, they're not punk. The majority of all band's implement elements of DIY when they're starting out. Just most bands choose not to harp on about it like its some big achievement.

Britney Spears' use to drag herself off to talent contests and her mother took her out of town to showcase. They were "doing it themselves" when they were sending out self made video tapes and demo songs out to record companies when she was starting out. Next you'll be trying to claim she is "punk rock" because of this. A musical artist bragging that they've actually had to do something themselves is not a determining factor in what form of music they play.

The 80s stuff you are talking about is hardcore, that is entirely different; different musical characteristics, style of dress, location, ideology, etc, etc. And the 90s stuff you are talking about is even more distant. Punk rock; a movement from New York & the United Kingdom which started in the 1970s and ended in the early 80s, period. Educate yourself please.

On the subject of spelling; I made very few mistakes around 2. (which bots similar to the AntiVandalBot which you trigged earlier, fix) You replaced a misspelled word... with another misspelling. That puts you in no position to criticize on a relatively trivial thing.

How is including information of a cover song the band have created (which was part of a highly popular movie) not relevant?... you’re attempting to cover things up for some unknown reason. Like the band are embarrassed about their past and you want to white wash it for them with an alternative version?

I have read the lyrics to “The Bondage Song”; “take me to bed and rip me apart”... yes, I’m sure with that title and those lyrics, that it has nothing to do with sex. Come on, please be serious here. A drummer and bassist played on Selected Scenes.. search on MySpace group. Brennan and Arklette have both stated they did. - Deathrocker 05:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking user talk page

Hello!

You have remove others comments or blanked this user talk page 11 times since July 21, 2006.

diff 1 diff 2 diff 3 diff 4 diff 5 diff 6 diff 7 diff 8 diff 9 diff 10 diff 11

It is regarded as inappropriate to edit or remove others comments from a talk page. Furthermore actively erasing non-harassing personal messages without replying (if a reply would be appropriate or polite) can be interpreted as uncivil or even hostile. (See the talk page guidelines and user talk page help.) But you are allowed to archive your talk page after a period of time. Sincerely, --Oden 14:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ODEN- I have responded to this user with EACH AND EVERY MESSAGE. Try looking at his talk page for proof of this! I removed his messages because he is harassing me and posting stuff that is not true Try reading my responses on his page. How do you archive a page? I don't want his garbage littering my page. Why did you restore lies to the article on LAM? We are supposed to be able to edit the articles for accuracy. Deathrocker continually posts PERSONAL OPINION and stuff that I've shown repeatedly to be false. Why are you allowing this and constantly blanking my edits?--Blipblip 20:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my understanding that both you and Deathrocker probably have violated Wikipedia's policy on civility, however some of his (and some of your) comments, while uncivil, were also related to article content and not only harassing in nature. (Actually, instead of discussing the article on your respective talk pages all comments should have been posted on the article talk page). If you view his talk page archive at User_talk:Deathrocker/Archive_1 you will see that all of the comments you posted have been saved.
You also removed other users' comments from this talk page, including one from a Wikipedia administrator after you were blocked for violating the three-revert rule. I was unable to determine which comments you removed because you considered them harassing and which ones you removed for other reasons, so I restored the entire talk page.
Blanking and reverting are not identical actions, blanking is to remove content while reverting is to restore to a previous version (for instance after vandalism).
I have not "restore[d] lies to the article on LAM" since I have not reverted that article. Take a look at the page history.
There are many ways of archiving, including a automatic bot called Werdnabot. If you want automatic archiving you place {{subst:User:Werdnabot/Archiver/Template|age=5|target=User talk:Blipblip/Archive_1|dounreplied=(dounreplied)}} at the top of this talk page.
A final note: all editors should remember that editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. (See also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not.)

Sincerely, --Oden 22:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oden

How was I harassing? By pointing out that he misspelled words? How else am I to communicate these things if I can't tell him he can't spell and has wrong information? I tried to do this civilly and he's been acting like a thug. His history of being banned and disruptive editing continues in this case. This has escalated primarily due to his attitude and refusal to actually understand my edits and additions to the page.

Sorry- I misread the History page. Someone restored Deathrocker's article, I thought I'd read it was you. This person, (perhaps Deathrocker being annoymous?), erased all of my edits, which were very important edits since his is so full of not only misinformation, but spelling and grammar errors. You have 2 edits immediately following that "restoral" so I thought it might be you who did that.

Deathrocker's article contains things that are not true as I've pointed out. Also the wording on some things is misleading. He continually ignores major points like the distinction between LAM being Sean Brennan and the live members (when there are live members) being primarily that, live members. He asserts personal opinion and unsourced claims in his article, etc. Why is this allowed? Why can't I have input in this especially since Deathrocker has repeatedly shown his ignorance of the facts in regard to LAM as I have pointed out?

One thing- I was unaware that you couldn't do what you wanted with your own wiki page. I have seen several that have been very customized. It was my impression that this talk page was sort of like a message center. I deleted the comments for clarity.--Blipblip 23:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You stated here on User talk:Deathrocker: "Why do you insist on editing pages if you know nothing about the subject? Stop editing the LAM page" and "You don't know what you're talking about so why pretend that you do?". See Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks.

My recommendation is to remain calm (perhaps read the essay Staying cool when the editing gets hot), assume good faith and try to work any differences of opinion out on the article talk page in a civilised and rational way. --Oden 00:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oden, I have tried this. But Deathrocker continually ignores the major points of my changes and keep restoring his verison without even considering that he may be at fault. So what can be done then? --Blipblip 02:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation and subsequently arbitration. But try working it out on the article talk page first. --Oden 03:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Brennan

The article on Sean Brennan was removed per WP:BIO. The reason given by the editor was "If, as it appears from this article, Brennan's only source of notability is in connection with the band, then this page should be a redirect". The page now redirects to London After Midnight (band). --Oden 00:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, the article was not started by me and was unwanted by Brennan anyway.

List of vegans

I see the article now. The anon. IP user was trying to add Sean Brennan (musician), a non-existent article and thus unfit for inclusion (or "illegitimate", by your language), which is why I deleted it. That is, the article should have no red links, which is what the anon. IP user was adding. Technically, Sean Brennan still doesn't qualify for inclusion as his name is a hard rd to his band's article and he does not have his own article, but since you seem to have strong opinions on the subject I'll let it slide. Colinclarksmith (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]