User talk:Solidest

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2021/July; 2021/August; 2021/November; 2022/February; 2022/April; 2022/May; 2022/June; 2022/July; 2022/August; 2023/February; 2023/August; 2023/September; 2023/November; 2024/February; 2024/June; 2024/August; 2024/September;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Thanks

Thanks for the thanks on the edit on the disco-pop article. I was worried just going ahead and editing it wouldn't be perceived as well thought out. I tried to cut it down to what is and what was said in the articles. Its still a bit iffy and while I agree with you on principle that saying disco-pop and disco in these revival threads is splitting hairs and the authors are probably referring to the same kind of thing, nothing says that as there isn't a lot on this under-explored sub-genre. I hope there are no hard feelings despite the back and forth! :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was just important for me to leave a place where the many disco-pop links I corrected in the articles would lead, rather than cancelling those edits or replacing them again with disco-pop, which I think is a mistake. I'm pretty sure it's an established genre, though lacking in-depth sources, so the text about it can be improved and expanded over the time (in such cases it even seems to me that these wikipedia small descriptions and links to it will stimulate more sources to appear). So I appreciate you corrected the text. P.S. By the way there is probably a mistake in the second paragraph with "Several songs the 1970s" part as both singles are 2000s. Solidest (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whups! yep that's a mistake. Will fix. And no, i definitely think people linking disco-pop which is worse (probably against WP:EGG and I can't imagine what the average non-editor gets from it. I'll take a look see on my mistake. Thanks though! Andrzejbanas (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We Need to Talk

Yesterday, I made some edits to the Funk template, but you reverted them all. One genre that you removed was Punk funk. All that tells me is that you never read the page for the genre; otherwise, you would know that punk funk is a fusion genre of punk rock and funk. 2600:6C5A:417F:528F:692B:4946:7A90:A055 (talk) 16:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yeah, you can leave it there for now, considering we already have funk rock and funk metal there as well (both of which, in my opinion, emulate funky bassline but are not funk as such, and the same with punk funk). But that would require revising the articles themselves to reflect that. Other excluded genres are definitely not funk, don't always have a funky bassline, and are not called funk anywhere by any reliable sources. Solidest (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rap Rock problems

This year, a sockpuppet removed some genres from the Rap rock template. I've tried, many times, to add them back, but for some reason, a user called Binksternet believes the sockpuppet and keeps removing the genres. They've clearly never read the pages for the genres; otherwise, they'd know that those genres are fusion genres of rap and the various genres of rock. 2600:6C5A:417F:528F:59F7:72BA:1F04:EC0B (talk) 15:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Binksternet, someone forgot to ping you. Drmies (talk) 15:37, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the ping. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what this has to do with my talk page. Solidest (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not very much. This IP person from Atlanta has consistently refused to cite sources while changing genres in music articles. They also change music genre navigation templates in ways that are not supported by the literature. I have asked them many times to read a book or two about the genres that they are interested in, but this has not happened. The person was blocked in 2021 as Special:Contributions/2601:C7:C201:C640:0:0:0:0/64. Blocked again in 2022 as Special:Contributions/47.36.25.163. In 2023, they were blocked as Special:Contributions/2600:6C5A:417F:794E:0:0:0:0/64. Earlier this year, Special:Contributions/2600:6C5A:417F:528F:0:0:0:0/64 was blocked twice. They were probably coming here because of this revert you performed. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding WP:G8 tags to pages that haven't been deleted just yet?

Hi Solidest,

While your contributions, especially in the work of tagging userspace sandboxing that will most always end up as speedy deletion, perhaps it might be preferable to wait until they have actually been deleted and/or the users blocked?

Examples:

I guess the tagging may well be eminently and commendably prescient work on your part - that said, it would appear to me little bit WP:BITE-y if you don't let those new userspace sandboxing will most always end up as speedy deletion users know what they are doing wrong.

On reflection: in *your* defence, tell me why all those WP:G8 tags were right. I can see a good case for them.

10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've been primarily clearing the music genre project of pages that have nothing to do with its scope. Where it made sense, I deleted the project template. But all I nominated were discussion pages to empty sandboxes. Some of them have been like this since mid 2022. I think in these cases it makes more sense to completely remove the discussion pages along with the links to the projects, than to just remove the project templates and leave an empty sandbox and an empty discussion page like this. I doubt that under current conditions anyone would need to discuss <emptiness>, let alone link it to projects. And if suddenly content appears in sandboxes again, most likely it will be other projects and they can be refilled once again. P.S. User from link #4 is blocked since February 2023. Solidest (talk) 10:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]