User talk:CatTits10

Welcome!

Hello, CatTits10, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! C F A 💬 02:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

sorry about reverting your edits

Daisytheduck ^{quack quack} 23:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All good homie, Glen Benton is a controversial dude so I'm sure it looks like vandalism whenever someone adds quotes from him CatTits10 (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank YOU!

For the excellent username, mostly, but also for your recent work in shedding some light on this whole technical death metal "business". If you should hear of a regional scene popping up anywhere, let me know. There's this obscure butt rock "project" I've been "putting off" for "some time" now. If not, cool. Knowing your name's good enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! CatTits10 (talk) 20:03, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 1

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Effigy of the Forgotten

added a link pointing to Intoxication

Heavy metal subculture

added a link pointing to George Fisher

Jack Owen

added a link pointing to Alive

Paul Waggoner

added a link pointing to Heavy metal

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from articles

Why do you keep removing excessive amounts of content from articles without reaching a consensus first? I understand trimming excessive information but you are removing a substantial amount of sourced content that is supposed to be in the article. Yes, single releases are supposed to be in the separate album article, but they go in the band's main article too. Removing all the sourced content takes more away from the page than it helps it. It would be greatly appreciated if you would discuss it on the talk page first to determine what information should be removed. Thank you. Bowling is life (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a specific "Tours" section then. Most of this shit is just ANNOUNCEMENTS of tours. TEASERS of alums. REVEALS of album covers. Then there will be a giant block quote of a band member going all like "yeeeeah bro. we really wanted to go in a much darker direction for this album. We really stepped up our game and it all really came together on this one. We can't wait to go play these songs on the road!" These pages read like Fandom pages, not Wikipedia pages. These pages were obviously written by very young fans. Everyone I know says they hate Wikipedia because it lacks a neutral point of view. CatTits10 (talk) 13:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine if you want to trim a little and remove stuff that doesn't have a neutral tone but you are removing to much. Bowling is life (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed that your edit on Ice Nine Kills introduced incorrect information for the singles of The Silver Scream 1 by including singles from The Silver Scream 2. Bowling is life (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter that the information was unfactual because nobody was going to take that article seriously anyway because of how cringe-inducing the tone of the content is CatTits10 (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just upset that these articles read like they were wrote by young fans who don't know what Wikipedia writing truly is. Why is a fucking lyric video notable enough to include in the article? CatTits10 (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed this, and wanted to revert last night but it is irreparable because there was a blacklisted link grandfathered into the page. I was confused why such large amounts of content were being removed without communication or edit summary, but then I read what I interpret as your mission statement on your user page and it explained a little bit.

Not everything you're cutting is appropriate. Indeed, there is a cruft problem on many scene bands. Yes, perhaps this example you've given is a good one, but an ideal article is supposed to be long and comprehensive - if they want to read a part of the band's history, they can just go to whatever portion of the article they want to see. You have a noble intention, but the execution is a little extreme. A good timeline of the band's history should be more encompassing than you envision, though I also understand that some of it was the wrong kind of detail.

In addition, I'd encourage you to use edit summaries on edits like this, especially removals, so we all clearly understand what is happening.

Respectfully, I'd like to talk about this later. I have not examined all of the changes listed, but that much at a time so suddenly without specific reason does alarm me a little bit. mftp dan ^oops 16:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the concerns and the level-headedness. I feel like the fact that you couldn't revert me because of all the dead links shows how outdated and unmaintained some of these articles are hahaha CatTits10 (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, not dead links, blacklisted links. I literally cannot use Twinkle to revert you because it would restore a link to Kickstarter to the page which I would have found helpful. Too late now. mftp dan ^oops 23:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why are the links blacklisted? CatTits10 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to revert me the old-fashioned way? CatTits10 (talk) 23:54, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but due to the sheer number of them, it would take several edits or one very lengthy-constructed edit to do so. You're new, so you didn't know about blacklisted links probably and many editors would've done the same had they known it was there. I'll get around to fixing INK soon, but right now I'm cooking on A Day to Remember. Their album articles are more developed and I think I can cook something a lot better than what this page looks like right now. To answer your question, Kickstarter was probably blacklisted because it was spammed by anonymous and new users to abuse Wikipedia as a platform. mftp dan ^oops 23:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be able to tell if a link is blacklisted? Just memorizing them? CatTits10 (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to learn it is to try and cite one and get the big red error in your face trying to put one in. In KS' case, it's listed in English Wikipedia's local blacklist. I didn't know Kickstarter was blacklisted until last night, but I'm not surprised either.

I'm not saying the blacklist exists for no purpose, nor that you shouldn't remove blacklisted links when they remain on a page post-listing, but that you should use careful discretion about what the reasoning is behind it when you're aware of what the problem with it is. Some certain publications are blacklisted because they're grossly unreliable (example: Breitbart).

For more information on how they work, see WP:BLACKLIST. mftp dan ^oops 00:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you! CatTits10 (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

mftp dan worded it much better than I could. As Dan said, the articles should be comprehensive and edit summarizes should be used for big edits. But I shouldn't have reverted your edits immediately. I should have discussed with you first. I came off as a jerk and that was not my intention. You had good intentions and I should have recognized that. No hard feelings over this edit war we had. I didn't handle this the way I should have. I'm glad we were able figure some things out on the Ice Nine Kills article. Maybe we could do the same on the other articles like Bullet for My Valentine and Of Mice & Men so they are comprehensive but also so your concerns are addressed as well. Just let me know and I'd be happy to work with you on these articles with you when I have time. I'll be a little busy this week but I'll see what I can do. Thank you. Bowling is life (talk) 00:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping the same thing! You didn't come off as a jerk. I might have drank too much coffee. Cheers, CatTits10 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so I think I cooked on the Common Courtesy section of A Day to Remember, with intention that this is a demonstration. Before you call me a hypocrite for adding 10k bytes in one sitting, let me explain: first, much of it is ref coding I imported from the album's page (which I wrote or sourced much of). Second, this is what a decent band bio ought to look like; the previous version as you found it was indeed in rough shape, as do remain most other sections of the page. The choices of material included were by misguided fans who do not know how to focus on what details are appropriate in the timeline of a band's biography. This ought to help guide you. Does anything look too excessive? Is there anything you could argue is cruft? Cruft is what you've identified as seeking out to remove, which when identified correctly is valuable. mftp dan ^oops 01:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks so much better. Thank you. CatTits10 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Glad to be of help. The problems you're finding are unfortunately common for band biographies. They end up like that because a fan will be the first to report literally anything that happens related to the band, but nobody can be assed to update the way the article's written after it becomes outdated. And that garbage will gradually accumulate like a landfill. Wikipedia takes work, and most drive-by volunteers don't care. Understandable, they probably have lives (or not). Point being, most would rather just add content and completely ignore existing issues. mftp dan ^oops 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Ewald moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Jake Ewald. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because entire article is one sentence. All the 32 footnotes are overkill, and tacked on at the end of the one sentence. Insufficient content for an encyclopedia article.. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. JoeNMLC (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! i'll work on it later. CatTits10 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page The Front Bottoms has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm SKINNYSODAQUEEN. I noticed that you recently removed content from Touché Amoré without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. Hello. Seeing that you have been warned numerous times for removal of content, this will be your final warning until administrative intervention is necessary. SKINNYSODAQUEEN (talk) 23:18, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is unsourced content I am removing. Do not keep re-introducing unsourced content. You're objectively the one who is wrong lol. CatTits10 (talk) 23:19, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:UNSOURCED "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step". Blanking will not earn you brownie points. Please also note that the sourcing policy states that inline citations are specifically required for content likely to be challenged. The only challenge you've presented is on the grounds of "no sources", which is circulatory. Scaledish! Talkish? Statish.

Nah, that doesn't work. Citation needed tags just sit there for decades. Nobody ever touches them. It achieves nothing and there is no point. Also, I don't care if the content is likely to be challenged or not. We need to know where information is coming from, dude. Lol CatTits10 (talk) 03:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. I have some concerns with your blanking as well. Yes, everything needs to be sourced. But blanking is not your only option to combat this. Please consider finding sources instead. For example, this edit, in my opinion, was a poor decision. This content was not contentious, and sources were found almost instantly with the most basic of Google searches. Simply erasing it was not a net positive move for the article or the website. It would have been a step backwards.

Please rethink your approach, especially with simple, easily proven items. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously its not like this all across the board, but my rationale is as follows:

1. Removed info can be restored (it's not like my intention was for the info to be permanently removed from the page. I want the info reintroduced to the page with sources)

2. Nobody is going to bother to cite any of this stuff if it isn't being challenged. It's a neglected sector of this project.

3. Everybody just ignores the "citation needed tag" anyway.

4. Large walls of unsourced text are likely plagiarized anyway.

5. Wikipedia needs to be neutral in tone and not read like a fan site.

6. Unsourced statements on biographies pose legal concerns.

I guess my biggest frustration is that it seems people would rather edit war with me (Bowling is life is one of the only ones who will actually have a discussion with me) than actually do the Google search and fetch the sources. All my friends make fun of me for using wikipedia because "it isn't reliable", "it's written by kids", "they let anybody write on there", and "celebrities write their own articles". I care about free info and Wikipedia way too much to let the areas of the project I have expertise in be subject to drivel. CatTits10 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but my concern is these heavy handed edits you're making. Like this one. You erased years from a bands history, leaving multiple albums/eras completely unaddressed, despite sourced album article existing. Again, edits like this eliminate one problem (unsourced content) but create many more in the process (lack of coherency and cohesion in the content remaining.)

I've been editing here for 15 years and I've seen it done countless times. Editors who only go around performing heavy-handed cutting without regard to how they leave articles, or how easy it is to find sources, find themselves at odds with the community, and eventually find themselves blocked from editing. It is not a good sign, or normal, for so many editors to be objecting to your edits on your talk page like this. You need to reverse course or you're going to find yourself in the same situation of many before you. Sergecross73 msg me 14:50, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do way more than delete stuff though. I expand articles, correct grammar, fetch sources, ect. ect. Maybe I went a little overboard on the Less Than Jake edit. But there was soo much unsourced info and if I had just left another tag there then nothing ever would have gotten done, because nobody cares. It's embarrassing, dude. I will stop blanking gargantuan sections but I won't stop removing unsourced info that is poorly written. CatTits10 (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May you find the right balance before find yourself reported to WP:ANI or run afoul the wrong admin. Please be careful. Good luck. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bless CatTits10 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just voiced my concern about this user on there. Let’s see what other admins think. LesRoutine (talk) 16:03, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

9/6/2024

Hi there!

To start, it's great that you're interested in editing wikipedia, so welcome to the community!

However... I've noticed that you're tending to do very, very large removals of content. Instead I'd recommend working on the article in a user sandbox, and then considering adding the revamped section to the wiki. Ludus56 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

arguably, the article never should have had unsourced content to begin with. I have removed unsourced content from hundreds of pages and added them to my watchlist. I will monitor these pages and will fetch sources as people gradually add more content to them. but I can't be bothered to spend a whole lot of time editing scene bands. death metal, hardcore and emo for fucking life!!! CatTits10 (talk) 00:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Early November (album) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to The Early November (album). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:The Early November (album) has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:The Early November (album). Thanks! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. drafts don't automatically delete after a certain time period right? CatTits10 (talk) 09:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A draft without any edits for 6 months will be deleted. Schazjmd (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Your large-scale blanking of text often remove necessary context in articles. Could you instead source unsourced statements or add "citation needed" tags? Release dates of albums for example (1) can easily be sourced by just looking it up on AllMusic --FMSky (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]