User talk:M4pnt

Hello, M4pnt. You have new messages at Osubuckeyeguy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of current UFC fighters

I would like to dissuade you from your plan to include height and reach in these tables. Although I do find this interesting and useful fighter information, I feel that it is a bit beyond the scope of this pages intent. I do not mean for this list to become a repository for all information about UFC fighters, I think that is too much to ask for the amount of fluctuation that this list undergoes as different fighters are signed and cut. If this were a website devoted to UFC fighters then I would agree that such information is paramount, but it's just a small wikipedia article meant to act as a reference as to who is currently fighting in the UFC. I would also argue that this information is too open to speculation and while the UFC does list much of this information on it's own website, providing a solid source, that information may differ quite a lot for other listed fighter sources (personal websites, sherdog, etc). I feel like opening this page to that amount of uncertain data would put it in line for constant editing wars. I am glad that you are interested in editing this page, and upkeep assistance is always welcome, I would also be very willing to discuss the potential impact (good and bad) of putting forth these changes in the pages "Talk" section. Thaddeus Venture (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it took forever to get back to you, but could you please give me a link to the NHL page you're talking about as no list of NHL players I could find contained such info.Thaddeus Venture (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking etcetera in autumn 2010

{{Unblock on hold|1=Bsadowski1|2=I did not have different user names purposely. I didn't like my other names so now I will stick to this. I didn't know you can't change names as much so I do not deserve to be blocked. I have helped this site so much & deserve to be on it|3=Daniel Case (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

I don't think you quite understand what the problem here is. If all you want to do is change your username, the appropriate venue is WP:CHU. If you want to make a clean start under a new name, you can abandon an account and create a new one, but you should not engage in the exact same behaviors as your old account, especially if they were problematic behaviors. You appear to have created a new account every time you accumulated a few warnings, which looks to us like you were simply trying to evade scrutiny of your actions and come back appearing to be a new user. That is deceptive, even if it didn't actually fool anybody. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin with all the knowledge of wiki. I just come on here to make articles of things I like proper. Now for as you will see I am going to ask questions. I like this name but is there any I can start fresh with it and clear up all the bad of it? If I clean start it, will I have the same problem of ppl thinking I sockpuppeting? As for warnings I think I have become aware of what are the wrong things to do on this site but that was all in the past. I have done wrong before like others. I have seen Others do the same mistakes as I and I have corrected it with the help I got when I made Mistakes. No deception, I don't have time for that. Twas an honest mistake on the wrong time. M4pnt (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can't do a clean start right now because you are blocked. That would be block evasion. If you should be unblocked and decide to go for a clean start, you should be careful to avoid any editing that would tie the two accounts, as that is not a clean start, it is continuing the same behavior with a different name. If you just want a different name you can request that at any time without creating a new account. In any event there is some overlap in the timing between your previous accounts, meaning that you had more than one active account at the same time, and you even edited the same page on the same day with two different accounts. Since your earliest edits on your first account were more than three years ago you can't really pull the "I'm new here" card. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to stick this account as promised but are you saying I should stay away from my previous edits? I would like to work on them for perfection. 3 Years? Didn't notice but most of that time I obviously did not know a lot of the rules and I can honestly it wasn't up till now that I know the stuff of here and I believe I'm still learning. Practice makes perfect. M4pnt (talk) 04:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep this name you can feel free to edit whatever you like, that was only in reference to making another WP:CLEANSTART. And don't worry about knowing all the rules, nobody does. I'm going to go see if we get some resolution to this from the other two involved admins.

Ok I get the cleanstart now. I would like try know the rules as much as possible to avoid an incident like this again. I'm assuming that you handled my case and I would like to thank you (the other admin) sincerely and I'm not saying that to suck up cos I like this site and maybe like to become an admin one time. I'm glad you came upon my request. If it's possible can you talk to the one who blocked me cause I don't want any more issues, if you can. I don't think (he/her) understood my situation fully and should talk to users before making a block or contact other admins you know follow some procedure. It's good to see an (I believe you are an adim) admin have my back and if you happen to know I've done wrong feel free to message. thnx. M4pnt (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Welcome back. Please do limit yourself to one account at a time in the future.

Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Bloodbath

Hi! I reverted some of your edits on some Bloodbath pages, specifically Resurrection Through Carnage and Breeding Death. Crediting things like "death grunts" is really too specific, "vocals" handles it quite well. Also, instruments are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalized. Finally, some of your edits removed some wikilinks, which I have restored as they are relevant to the article: all the members have their own wikipedia pages and as such should be wikilinked. I'm sure your edits were in good faith, so this isn't an angry message, I just wanted you to be aware of why your changes were reverted. Thanks for contributing! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to explain this to M4pnt (or Motaros, or whatever he likes to call himself) several times, but it just doesn't seem to stick. Nymf _hideliho! 22:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your post on my talk page, M4pnt:

"Wikilinking" is where you use [[ and ]] brackets around words to link them to other Wikipedia articles. In this case, you removed those brackets from around the musicians' names, so instead of Mikael Akerfeldt linking you to his page, it just said Mikael Akerfeldt. Since Akerfeldt (and the other musicians) have their own pages, it's a good idea to link them to those pages.
Regarding "death grunts" vs. "vocals", Nymf is correct in saying that we should only call them that, if they are credited like that in the album or some other reliable source. Otherwise it is original research (regardless of it being true). "Vocals" is more general, and covers more ground (in case there are some screams, singing, or other such vocalisations).
Regarding the capitalizations, I understand what you were doing, however it is unnecessary, as those uncapitalized links will find their way to the correct page.

I hope this helped to better explain what I did. Thanks for your reply! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OVERLINK says that once a specific thing has been wikilinked once in an article, it doesn't need to be linked again. Looking at those pages, I see there's a few "overlinks", I'll have a look at cleaning those out. As for wikilinking with capitals, the redirects exist for just these sorts of reasons. There's nothing wrong with using them to make the articles still follow correct formatting (meaning only capitalizing proper nouns). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments

Since you apparently do not trust my judgment (and completely ignores it), I would be willing to bring this to either WP:ANI, WP:RFC or WP:3O if you want. Let me know. Nymf _hideliho! 22:20, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps WP:DR. Nymf _hideliho! 00:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I trust your Judgement always, I never had a problem with you, I thought you were giving me a hard time or something. You weren't being to clear with me. You know this site more than me. I learnt the wiki:birth from you. I was just trying to make sense of everything so yes if you can help discuss polices of this site to others please do. As for Drum kit, wouldn't it be the same as making connections with strumming and guitar? A guitar can't make sound without strumming so do have to type the article as strumming? (That last statement wasn't meant to look like I'm angry, I'm just stating my point). M4pnt (talk) 22:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Birth dates for Swedish people

You can check it here. "Förnamn" means surname and "Efternamn" means last name. So for example, type in Niclas Engelin, and you will end up with the full name, age, birth date and address. You can use that for any Swedish people. Nymf _hideliho! 19:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thnx I was going to ask you about that. how do you get more results on a page like or like to switch to another page? M4pnt (talk) 01:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

You are an old editor, but recently blocked and unblocked for not knowing the rules. Probably because none ever welcomed you =P So here is your welcome.

Hello, M4pnt! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Neo139 (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Breeding Death

Hey, check out Talk:Breeding Death for why I've been reverting your edit to Breeding Death. If you want to discuss it, feel free to bring it up there. Thanks! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:49, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "bring it up there (Talk:Breeding Death)" didn't you understand? Don't just re-undo the edit again, bring up your reasons for changing it on the talk page, like I brought up my reasons for keeping it the way it was. If you want to change it, discuss it first. I replied to your post on my talk page telling you this, said it above, and included it in my edit summary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please post on Talk:Breeding Death, not on my talk page, if you want to discuss this. In the meantime, I don't understand your question, "where does it say about not shortening EP's?". Please rephrase your question and I will try to answer it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please post your concerns on Talk:Breeding Death. Get it? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly can have a discussion, but the best place to do this is on the article's talk page, as it relates specifically to that article. That is what those talk pages are for. As for your question, the onus is not on me to show why NOT to do something, the onus is on you to show WHY we should do something. I've already stated that this isn't a "very long list or page with several lists," so unless you can demonstrate that it IS a "very long list or page with several lists", or you can find some other policy-based reason to make your changes, then your changes are unnecessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Adrian Erlandsson. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 21:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Summaries

Tip of the day...

Please summarize your work using the Edit summary box

If you make anything other than a minor edit to an article, it helps others if you fill in the edit summary. Edit summaries are visible in the page history, watchlists, and on Recent changes, so they help other users keep track of what is happening to a page.

If you use section editing, the summary box is filled in with the section heading by default (in gray text), which you can follow with more detail. You also can put links to articles in the edit summary. Just put double brackets around [[the article title]] like you would normally. The summary is limited to 255 characters, so many people use common abbreviations, such as sp for correcting spelling mistakes, rm for remove, ce for copy-edit, etc.

Prior tip – Tips library – Next tip

Nightmares Made Flesh

I've undone a bunch of your revisions to Nightmares Made Flesh (not all of them, however, a couple were good edits). You can find explanations for why I undid what I did on Talk:Nightmares Made Flesh. If you want to discuss these edits, please bring it up there. This is part of a process known as be bold, revert, and discuss, where you make some edits, I reverted them, and then we discuss the edits and reversion.

I will say here, however, that you should really read Template: Track listing before using the "collapse" parameter, because you keep using it in unnecessary situations. I'm also not sure why you keep removing wikilinks to articles about instruments (such as vocals) and to articles about individual members (Peter Tägtgren, Martin Axenrot, etc). As I have explained to you previously, these wikilinks are good things, and should be kept. Please read WP:ALBUM for more information.

When making edits, please include an edit summary to help explain what edits you are making and why. See Help:Edit summary for more info.

I really think you need to read some more Wikipedia policy and project pages before continuing to edit articles on music. Template:Infobox album, Template: Track listing, WP:ALBUM, and Help:Edit summary would all be good places to start.

Again, if you want to discuss why I undid most of your edits, please bring it up on Talk:Nightmares Made Flesh, not your talk page or mine. Thanks. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The credits from the booklet are considered reliable, but there is no need to link to a scan of the booklet (if you want, you can put a comment in next to the info, like this: . The scan itself is probably a non-free copyrighted image, and so linking to it would be against WP:COPYLINK. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I've undone your edits. You asked me why not to link to the album scan, I've explained why above, yet you continue to ignore what I am telling you. Am I not making myself clear? If not, please tell me how I can explain it to you so that you will understand. If you want to re-add any of your edits, first discuss them at Talk:Nightmares Made Flesh, so we can find a way to add them that is consistent with Wikipedia guidelines, or so that we can discuss why they are not acceptable. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already fixed it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:59, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added a reference to the Allmusic site about the album, here, which gives more accurate writing credits than simply "Bloodbath". Allmusic is considered a reliable source, so it's ok to use the information from there to improve the article as well. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we absolutely can take that site's word over the band's. As I said, Allmusic is considered a reliable source, and information from that site is perfectly acceptable to be used in the article. Because this information is from a reliable source, it is verifiable, and since I have included a reference, the information can stay in the article.

Also, this is again a discussion better suited for Talk:Nightmares Made Flesh, not our respective talk pages. Is there a reason you refuse to post this type of discussion there? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries yet again

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to List of rock instrumentals. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Trafford09 (talk) 23:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Destroy Erase Improve

So I have to ask, do you even bother listening to the advice you are given from other editors? Once again, you're putting songs into separate tracklists that don't belong in separate tracklists (and collapsing them for some unfathomable reason). You have not shown any sort of policy that states we should be putting bonus tracks into separate tracklists, I have shown you policy that explains why we don't need to collapse tracklists unless really necessary, and yet you just keep on doing it. Do you ever even read the links to policy that I (and others) have given you?
Anyway, I have tried to be patient, and explain things to you, but instead of listening, or doing the research on the policies linked for you, you continue to ignore them. This is starting to go from helping a user who wants to learn, to trying to help a user who is thoroughly uninterested in following Wikipedia's policies. As such, here is a list of Wikipedia policies and pages that are worth your time to read, before making more edits.

WP:RS - reliable sources (what is/isn't a reliable source)
WP:MOS (music) - Manual of Style (how to correctly format a page about a musical subject)
Template:Tracklist - information on how to use the tracklist template correctly, and when certain attributes (such as the "collapse" feature) should be used
Template:Infobox album - information on how the infobox for albums should be used
WP:ALBUM - more information on how to correctly format album pages, as well as what information should (not) be given
WP:COPYLINK - why linking to copyrighted, non-free images can be a copyright violation (such as scans of booklets)

Hopefully this will give you the information you need to start making better edits, instead of repeatedly making the same bad edits over multiple pages.

Also, if you have questions about what I've asked, please don't just say "what do you mean?". What do I mean about what? Be specific about what you don't understand, and I will try to explain it.

I'm curious, is English your first language, or do you speak another language more often? Are my explanations using words that you are unfamiliar with? If so, please tell me, and I will attempt to use language that is easier to understand. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with Wikipedia policy, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for you to contribute. In order to edit Wikipedia, you must abide by the policies they set forth. This includes using information provided by reliable sources. If you think Allmusic is "terrible", then that's fine, but you'll have to find sources that are considered reliable to include the information you want. Band webpages are not considered to be reliable, because they are not independent of the source. Allmusic is considered reliable, and so information from it can be included. As I suggested earlier, the information they provide regarding writing credits may be taken from a music publisher, in which case it is MORE accurate than what the band says.

Regarding the collapsing of tracklists, it's not whether it's an EP or an album, it's what the tracklist template page says. I have quoted this to you before, but I will quote it again (taken from Template:Tracklist): "Useful for very long lists or pages with several lists". So far I have not seen you use this on a page that has either a "very long list" OR a page "with several lists".

Finally, I am not "hounding" you, I am trying to help you understand why your edits are unconstructive, and how you can make your edits MORE constructive. I know I'm not the first editor to try to help you, and I know that you have had problems taking suggestions from other editors previously, so I've been trying (really damn hard) to be helpful and friendly. However, this is a two-way process; when I cite policy and suggest that you read it, you have to take it upon yourself to actually read that policy and understand what it's saying. When I was a new editor, I made some mistakes, some bigger than others. When I did, other editors would explain what the problem was, and usually provide a link (and sometimes a quote) to the policy page that backed up what they said. If I didn't understand, I would ask for specific guidance. This is what I have tried to do for you. I'm by no means an expert editor, but I have learned quite a bit, and I'm trying to help you learn too. I can tell that you're interested in improving articles, and that's great! But you have to improve them based on Wikipedia's policies. User:Neo139 provided a "Welcome" template above with many helpful links. It would be in your best interest to check out some of those links, and better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current members

Please stop removing current members from the "Current Members" attribute of bands' infoboxes, as you did at Bloodbath. The whole point of the infobox is to have specific information given right there, right at the top of the article. As I said in my edit summary, read Template:Infobox band#current members. It clearly says to list the current members, and says NOTHING about putting "see below" or any other such thing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We give a summary of important information in the infobox, and full information in the article. That is the point of the infobox: it gives a quick summary of important information contained in the article. If you can find a policy-based reason to change the infobox to say "See Below", please provide a link and I'll check it out. Otherwise, please stop removing the information from band infoboxes (I see you have done this to several articles. If you'd like, you can undo these edits, or I can take a look and undo them for you). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar/formatting

Hi,

I've had to adjust some of your contributions, which contained commas and capital letters in weird places.

For example, on Alexi Laiho:

"Roadrunner Records ranked him #41 out of 50 of The Greatest Metal Frontmen of All Time." vs "Roadrunner Records, Ranked Him #41 out of 50 of The Greatest Metal Frontmen of All Time."

And on Arbor Day:

In the Episode Tree Top Casino, Bam Margera attempts to put excitement into Arbor Day.

vs

In the Viva La Bam episode "Tree Top Casino", Bam Margera attempts to put excitement into Arbor Day.

Please ensure that your contributions maintain the encyclopedic quality of Wikipedia articles.

Thanks!

Tomalak Geret'kal (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Deliver Us (In Flames song)

The article Deliver Us (In Flames song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Song fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG criteria.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Misery's Crown

The article Misery's Crown has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No references, no claim of notability, fails WP:NSONG and WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Richhoncho (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]