User talk:Category adder/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

April 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Category adder (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking me does nothing to help the situation, because if I'm able to edit, I can go back and fix my edits that have been deemed poorly sourced. I promise I will no longer add anything that can not be reliably sourced.

Decline reason:

If you are taking a month off, there is no need to remove this 24 hour block. 331dot (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've been warned numerous time about using poor quality sources to support genre tinkering and you're still doing it. See here you add a source to support "glam metal" (which I note was your addition to begin with) and this source doesn't even mention glam metal. As I mentioned before, it is very tiring for other editors to monitor all these pages and have to check your sources which you are still mis-using. You will receive further blocks of greater length if you do not stop this behavior, to prevent degradation of these articles. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That source mentions hair metal. Category adder :D (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

And the other source calls it metal-pop which is a synonym for pop-metal/glam metal. Category adder :D (talk) 00:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

But I understand the block, I myself this morning realized that some of my edits were poorly sourced and that I should revert them, which I planned on doing later today or tomorrow when I have more free time Category adder :D (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, blocking you helps the situation because it protects further articles from damage. We've already had this conversation and you're not absorbing it. You added a source that reads "this 'hair metal'-era smash hit" which doesn't actually call the album hair metal, it just says its from that era. Your personal opinions about hair metal or metal-pop being a synonym for glam metal are irrelevant. You have to find high quality sources that explicitly apply the genre to that subject. I told you this months ago and you didn't take that on board at all. You're just tinkering with genres to suit your opinions and making work for other editors. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the part about "making work for other editors" is true. I have lots of other things I could be doing but these unsupported genres have to be cleaned up. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It’s not my personal opinions, look on the page for glam metal, the list of glam metal bands, and the list of glam metal albums and songs, they both are listed as synonyms. I’m not tinkering genres to suit my opinions, I’ve provided sources for everything, sure they’re not always reliable, but all my edits have been in good faith. I do admit I was ignorant in not listening to you a couple months ago though. It would be more helpful if you pointed me to rule pages I should read, instead of assuming things that simply aren’t true. Please don’t take this as me being disrespectful, I’m only trying to argue what I’m thinking, I apologize if anything I said comes across differently. Category adder :D (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Glam metal is treated the same on Wikipedia as pop metal and hair metal. But "metal-pop" might mean something else. It really helps when the genre is named explicitly.

One thing that I already said to you is that "metal" by itself doesn't necessarily mean the "heavy metal" genre. You found some lists of metal albums and you determined that these were all heavy metal albums. I am reversing that action.

Part of the problem with that is a strange trait of lists: every writer who is making a list of music by genre is far more inclusive than a writer who is looking at only one item and analyzing its genre. A hard rock album with some hair metal elements will likely be categorized as hair metal if the list is oriented toward hair metal. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the metal lists, I’ve reverted a couple of my edits with those. In the Orlando sentinel article, the writer uses pop-metal and metal-pop as essentially synonymous terms. I’m gonna chill out with adding genres for a while after the block, I’ll take a month or so to read up on Wikipedia’s list of reliable sources then I’ll have a better understanding. I’ll help fix all of the mayhem my edits have caused, I apologize to both of you for my bad edits. Category adder :D (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

When you return I'd be happy to participate in mentoring you if you are willing. I made a number of points to you a couple months ago, and again recently, that you evidently rejected or failed to take on board and that's part of the issue. The points are related to quality of sources and use of sources. We simply can't have poor-quality sources being introduced or sources mis-applied to articles. We have randos every day who are intent on messing around with the genres on music articles, for reasons I'll never understand, but our job as established editors is to be a net positive or just not touch them. Our opinions on the genres have no bearing on the situation. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

And the fact that you went right back to doing it after your block expired is simply amazing. A click-bait "top 20" article from LA Weekly is not a quality source to be supporting materiel added to an article. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 05:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I think it would be very cool if you mentored me. Category adder :D (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of songs recorded by Van Halen

Hello, Category adder. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of songs recorded by Van Halen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)