User talk:Woovee

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 Goth subculture. Please note that I have reverted your changes as some of them appeared to be deleting content, which requires explanation. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Gothic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pop (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Amadou & Mariam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blur (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Something Else (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the vandal is you because you came on Not Your Kind of People page and added that terrible Clash Music review. I mean not just the rating but the content itself. Also it's very, very short. I can't call this a honest review, but a hateful and biased review.

Also you removed a 5 star review just to add that crappy review. That Clash Music review can be found through Metacritic link anyway.

I have a feeling that you wrote that review... Otherwise why you're so insistent? Deepblue1 (talk) 17:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said before, you're the vandal because YOU try to insert your own terrible review.Deepblue1 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You started to get on my nerves. I will NOT tolerate your attempts to insert your shitty review. Move the issue on Talk Page of Not Your Kind of People and let's vote! Deepblue1 (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• See this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Not_Your_Kind_of_People. You accuse me without evidences. Stop saying lies about me.Deepblue1 (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to

Don't reintroduce your change to the article without explaining them elsewhere first. It saves a lot of reverting of mass changes. As

talk) 18:39, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Also on the point of the ratings template, you did notice how I did not mention the rating given by the reviewers in prose? It will already be noted in the ratings template, so I avoided being redundant. The Metacritic field in the template is an optional parameter (

talk) 18:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Did you even bother looking at what I did in my previous edit? I didn't add or remove any reviews. I removed "However, This is PiL has also been met with mixed reviews" and "The album has also received negative reviews". It's completely unnecessary to say that. Look at any other wikipedia article about an album that has a metacritic score in the 60s and you'll see that they never mention that the album has also received negative and mixed reviews. They let the reviews speak for themselves. Also, stop with the "you're a Punk sockpuppet" bullshit. I'm not a sockpuppet and your baseless accusations are completely irrelevant to my edits of This is PiL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vonran (talk • contribs) 17:50, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Valboo wrote it, then I copy-edited the text you're referring to at

Unless you have a specific issue about my improvement that's violating any guideline, then dont imply some page ownership that I cant make constructive edits to this article, which I've mightily improved since when I first edited it.

talk) 17:43, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from deleting content you do not agree with, as you did here to

]

File permission problem with File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the
  CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list
  ) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter
  OTRS pending
  }} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Birthday Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bauhaus (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mission (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although you mean well, I've again reverted your edits to

While you're at it, you might want to check that article for close-paraphrases. See my sandbox. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You helped this article to get GA last year where as there is a important problem of

I'll take a look. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 01:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked, and it appears you wish to make an edit. Just go and do it. If there's a problem with it, someone will make an adjustment, or enter a discussion with you. Be bold! Please be bold - that's how we make progress. If we entered into a discussion and got agreement for every minor edit, then Wikipedia wouldn't be the success it is. It was because of the slowness of getting agreement for content on Nupedia that Wikipedia was created. "Wiki" means quick - its essence is that multiple users can directly edit text collaboratively and directly, rather than having long discussions to get agreement first. Do it the wiki way - WP:Be bold! SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 02:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did several edits the last two weeks; the problem is they were quickly reverted and rejected by the same person who has been presenting the "song 2" single as "a hit" in the USA, where as 1) it was just a "a radio hit on alternative modern rock radios" !! and 2) not a hit at all in terms of commercial success as "Song2" never cracked the Hot 100 that is the only Billboard chart that includes "units sold" and "singles sales". " Billboard modern rock tracks" indeed is a list that mentions only the 40 most-played songs on alternative rock radios which is a very special sub-format. More important, this billboard isn't based from "units sold and single sales" at all. Clearly, this article should have never been rated GA because it mis-interpreted sources, and presents facts in a fallacious way. It's clearly original research that presenting "Song2" as "a hit". As an adminisrator who passed this GA and who didn't see this problem because you assumed, sources had been used following the wiki guidelines of neutrality, sticktosource and nooriginalresearch, you were abused in a certain way too. As a reader who knew Blur's history, and their cult status in the USA, they just had a album certified gold in 1997, I was baffled by the presentation of "song2" as a hit. It is also perverse because european people don't know exactly what is the Billboard alternative songs, and what is the Hot 100 (which is the equivalent of the uk singles chart if you prefer). Thank you for replying so quickly. - Woovee (talk) 17:24, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me to help you by stating the situation in one or two sentences. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the lead, it is said that "song 2" brought the band mainstream success in the states. This is not true: it was only the album that was certified gold in the USA, not that "song 2" single. Indeed, this single never entered the Hot 100 (the chart that include the sales): so how could it be presented as a hit. What is true is that the "song2" single was played a lot on alternative modern rock radios, it peaked at n°6 in the modern rock radios. so it was only a radio alternative rock radio. The use of the word "hit" is to me not appropriate. I would say that it had heavy rotation on alternative radios. Woovee (talk) 17:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the history and now see the situation. I agree with you. I was about to make the change, but note that it has already been done. There are now three editors who agree that "hit" means a record in the Billboard 100. Any further problems, please give me a ping. It helps if you explain quickly and clearly what the situation is. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indopug, has reverted most of Woovee's improvements with the assumption that what was there was accurate to the high-quality reliable sources, but much of it isn't. It can be difficult to improve an article when it has several watchers making sure that dubious content does not change. The problem is, Indopug didn't bother to actually check the sources before reverting. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I see that at last, some people agree with the fact that there's a problem of neutrality on this article, huge to my point of view. Woovee (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For your efforts to bring neutrality and accuracy to Wikipedia articles. It can be difficult to break-through on some of our pages, especially when several "veteran" editors are protecting dubious content, but hang-in there; we need more editors like you! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Song 2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• com/artist/292472/blur/chart?f=377 Billboard Alternative Songs] Billboard.com. Retrieved 9-1-2014}}</ref>
• name="allmusic">{{Allmusic|class=song|id=t1279006}} Song 2 | AllMusic<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> It has been licensed worldwide on numerous occasions. Its first appearance came as the title

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks,

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Piero Scaruffi may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• *1996: ''Il Terzo Secolo (The Third Century))''. Feltrinelli, Italy. Essays on the USA{{fact|date=January 2014}}

Thanks,

I have merged the two suggested wordings. Please review to see if it is acceptable: Talk:Blur_(band)#Dispute over "hit". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blues rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Green (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Elizabeth Fraser may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• walesartsreview.org/elizabeth-fraser/ 'Elizabeth Fraser Live'] by Adrian Master, Welsh Art Review]</ref><ref>[http://www.lucypotterton.com/#!about/c786 Lucy Potterton homepage - About Lucy
• review-8014875.html "Meltdown: Elizabeth Fraser, Royal Festival Hall - review"]. ''Evening Standard]]''. 7 August 2012. Retrieved 10-12-12</ref> <ref name="Mugan"/><ref name="Financial Times">Hunter-

Thanks,

Thanks for taking the time to edit all those scaruffi reviews on the Fahey album pages. Airproofing (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't think that the URL you are using works anymore, as the thread has been archived. I think this should work: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_46#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews — goethean 17:06, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Woovee, You stated that the Goth Bible is not (

Here is the editing guideline from

WP:CWW: "Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary

at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination." I read CWW, and didn't find any discussion of copying being discouraged. If I missed the section, please point it out to me, thanks.

OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Goth subculture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Murphy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, in Rip it Up and Start Agan, Simon Reynolds only refers to TBP as "proto-goth" (along with Bauhaus and The Banshees), as in it influenced the scene that followed. At what point does he describe TBP's "highly gothic, challenging lyrics" (which you highlight before anything else, giving the reader the impression that the band's fame rests on its literary qualities and not its sound, image, live shows...), or its "violent live sound influenced by punk rock and blues" (what does "live sound" even mean here? And is it not redundant to say that a post-punk band is influenced by punk rock?) The "Prince of Darkness" name occurs again and again in reviews and interviews, and packs a lot more punch than "the grand lord of gothic lushness". There is no doubt that elements of Cave's music have been described as gothic, and that he has influenced bands associated with the goth rock genre, but I think it's misleading to lump him into some kind of scene, which is what you appear to be doing. I suggest you read Kicking Against the Pricks if you haven't already. It's clear that Cave and the other BP members detested the goth scene and wrote "Release the Bats" as a parody of its followers. I hope we can reach some kind of consensus here. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBP is first and foremost a post-punk band; proto-goth doesn't adequately sum up the band's output/legacy. How about this: "Prior to this, he fronted The Birthday Party, one of the most notorious and influential post-punk bands of the 1980s. ... Referred to as rock music's "Prince of Darkness", Cave's output is generally characterised by emotional intensity, a wide variety of influences, and lyrical obsessions with death, religion, love and violence.[3] NME described him as "the grand lord of gothic lushness"." - HappyWaldo (talk) 15:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TBP was influential on the gothic rock genre - and many other (sub)genres. It's arguable that they influenced noise rock as much as gothic rock, maybe more so. There's a whole movement of American noise rock bands who aped TBP. Instead of singling out any area of influence, it's better to just say they were one of the most influential post-punk bands. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"You have to include the gothic adjective in the description of TBP" This is the lead for the Nick Cave article, not TBP. If you're going to emphasise the gothic connection then it opens the door to a variety of other labels bestowed upon them by critics over the years, from blues punk to aforementioned noise rock. Those two would be more legitimate given they have Wikipedia articles. Keep it simple and stick to the all-encompassing post-punk. I have agreed to the NME quote. - HappyWaldo (talk) 23:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I made the changes. Glad we had this discussion. - HappyWaldo (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee. You have new messages at De728631's talk page.
Message added 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

De728631 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adam Sweeting

added a link pointing to Richard Cook

Synchronicity I

added a link pointing to Richard Cook

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SilkTork,

As you are an administrator and you deal with articles about music, I wanted to ask you how a song has to be credited if the artist is known under a pseudonym. Let's take as instances songs by Dylan or Prince or Bowie: do they have to be credited as "Bob Dylan", "Prince", "David Bowie" or as "BoB Dylan|Robert Allen Zimmerman", "Prince (musician)|Roger Nelson" , "David Bowie|David Robert Jones". Thanks. Woovee (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If an artist is widely known under a pseudonym, their birth name would be mentioned in the main article on that person as that is part of the scope of that article, and is encyclopedic. In articles on that artists' work, we would tend to only use the pseudonym by which they are known, as their birth name would be out of scope for that article as the article would only be on the song itself, not on the history of the artist. If an artist uses an irregular pseudonym for a particular song or album, then we would give both the irregular pseudonym and the name by which they are better known, which may in itself be a pseudonym. See Don't Go Breaking My Heart. I hope that helps. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 07:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santigold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page B.C.. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Woovie, I enjoyed getting a chance get to meet you the other day--thanks for being so understanding. I can see that you are interested in music, so I am looking forward to working with you on many projects in the future.

]

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	This is in recognition of all of your fine efforts over the years. In this instance, I wish to mention your dedication to accuracy and reliability in our sources--and that is just what we need to be considered a credible encyclopedia. . talk) 19:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Here is another, in light of your many accomplishments over the years. talk) 19:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply ]

Garagepunk66, thank you very much. I used to be more prolific. I still keep on adding content on articles when I have time. Woovee (talk) 19:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, just some tokens of my appreciation.

talk) 19:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the The Cure (The Cure album) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

Thanks for posing the question. I fixed it so it is now a Request for Comments. I added your signature to the question as that is what is required. Karst (talk) 15:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC) @Karst: I thought to ask it at wikiproject alternative, as it doesn't only concern this article. I found a lot of sources for this legacy section a couple of years ago. Woovee (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent idea. Please proceed. Karst (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Black Celebration

added a link pointing to Steve Sutherland

Depeche Mode

added a link pointing to Spin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a ANI here about my edits on Siouxsie related articles that may interest you. thanks for reading. Carliertwo (talk) 05:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been getting mixed messages. For the longest time, I thought we were supposed to do like you said and only included studio albums in the infoboxes for studio album articles and tried implementing that policy on the My Chemical Romance articles but someone changed it back. See here, here, here, and here. There's more than those four but I just wanted to show you why I applied that to the Depeche Mode chain, even though as I said it was my understanding we were only supposed to do studio albums like you said. Shaneymike (talk) 16:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't use other articles as instances to follow. Had Black Celebration been released under another title and with another tracklisting in the US for instance, it would have been relevant to mention it. But including live albums, compilations, remixes cds is a no-no. Woovee (talk) 00:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Depeche Mode, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabaret Voltaire. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you recently removed content from Wish (The Cure album) 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 the 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. Robvanvee 15:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Robvanvee: Using a tool is such a plague on wikipedia because it makes longtime users waste a lot of time. Had you read the edits, you would have realized that these genres have been established by music historians for these albums for a long long time. Another point, one doesn't put any source in the infobox because the information doesn't simply belong there Woovee (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee.

talk!) 12:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hiya Woovee, I was a little puzzled by this edit and the concerns you expressed in the edit summary.

As for diffuser.fm not being mentioned on Metacritic, I don't know what criteria Metacritic uses. But the Times review for example isn't mentioned there either, nor the one in the Financial Times and several other papers. Best, --Andreas JN466 15:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas, you point out a few contradictions. I don't know why The Times and the Financial Times are not referenced on Metacritic. Maybe it is because the UK Times' group doesn't allow it. Anyway, Diffuser.fm is not well famous to my opinion: I don't rate it as a good source like the ones I've added. In fact, I don't remember seeing it ever including in the rating infobox/reception section of a music GA/FA. Diffuser.fm's looks like a summary of other reviews, it is my view. There are plenty of other reviews available for this album, I've just added another one. Woovee (talk) 23:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the sources you added are more important, and it's not like we're short of reviews. Still, I thought I'd mention it. The DYK reviewer (I'm happy to share DYK credit as you added some key sources) is asking for a citation for the track listing; any suggestions? --Andreas JN466 11:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, I've never seen a citation for a tracklisting, in an article about an album. One can add the BMG catalogue numbers for the standard edition and the Japanese edition, eventually. Woovee (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Hippopotamus (album), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Hippopotamus is Sparks' first UK top-ten album in over 40 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Hippopotamus (album). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Hippopotamus (album)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 12:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Post-punk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Robb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the message. i didn't mean to edit war or anything. thanks for the message though. I'll do my best to never do what i did again. Statik N (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited T. Rex (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tricky (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nick Cave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prince of Darkness (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nico, 1988, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Variety (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Woovee. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This is to notify you that there is a Request for Comment discussion on the talkpage for the article

As the RfC seems to have gone quiet and since you seem to be expanding the scope of this (viz deleting the details of band members' deaths) I have sought an alternative route. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:T._Rex_(band)#RfC_on_Disputed_Reformations_section

62.190.148.115 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Gothic rock" is listed in the infobox under "genre". What's your take on this? -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear
	Be well. Keep well. SilkTork (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SilkTork, thank you so much for this kind message :) Have a WikiChristmas and a PediaNewYear too. Woovee (talk) 22:59, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as we both appear unflinching on your views about the discussion at Talk:Goth subculture, I think it would be a good idea to seek a third opinion. I'm supposed to notify you before I request one to make sure you're alright with it, so I hope you're in support as I believe it would help to reach a consensus. Issan Sumisu (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Issan Sumisu, I have contacted a longtime wikipedia member to help finding a compromise. Woovee (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issan Sumisu As SilkTork only gave their opinion about the RSs, I agree to demand a third opinion to discuss some details as there are quite a few. Creating a section about the the nightclubs, the keyspaces that were important in the emergence of the goth subculture in the 1980s, would be the right thing to do in order to reach a compromise quickly. Woovee (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, feel free to go ahead. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:00, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:46, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Musicuk1984.jpg

Thanks for uploading

).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:59, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2020 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Slowdive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page My Bloody Valentine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Gracias, cada día aprendo más. No volveré a usar a Scaruffi en mis ediciones. En realidad, soy latino y uso traductor para añadir información, espero poder seguirles apoyando en estos temas de los cuales conozco aunque no maneje perfectamente su idioma. Bendiciones. ChuchoVCJMuzik (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sparks (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Jones.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:24, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Sky's Gone Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Murphy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T.Rex article/ 20th Century Boy

You're welcome re the thank - incidentally I have noticed a similar claim re. the end of Bowie's Glam run - the Rebel Rebel page claimed that it was Bowie's last glam anthem, even though the next Bowie single, the Diamond Dogs title track, is also very much a Glam anthem. I tagged the claim for CN.Romomusicfan (talk) 01:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Music U.K. (magazine)

article space

.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

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.

talk) 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Your draft article, Draft:Music U.K. (magazine)

Hello, Woovee. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Music U.K.

".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission

and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

this link

. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marc Bolan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hot Love.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Zinc Alloy and the Hidden Riders of Tomorrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Groove.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Pursuit of Love (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Order and Marino Marini.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marc Bolan Truck Off 1974 by Ian Dickson.jpg

That the file has been on Commons for months does not mean it's acceptable to use here. Commons is not en.wikipedia. We are not responsible for their copyright errors, nor do we have to incorporate them here. Further, Commons is badly backlogged on all sorts of administrator requests. It is nearly a failed project at this point. We can not accept copyrighted, non-free materials on this project unless used under

the non-free content policy, which this would not qualify for since we have a perfectly good image of him in concert in 1973 at File:Marc Bolan In Concert 1973.jpg. There is no reason to include the image you want to include. I am re-removing it. Please stop adding it. If you have questions, certainly ask me. I'll be happy to help. Attempting to edit war a copyright violating image onto the article is not the way forward. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Extremities, Dirt and Various Repressed Emotions, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages EG and Paul Raven.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sparks (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tiny Tim.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

Bloodflowers

Hello Woovee. You've said that Robert Smith has changed his mind often on his favourite Cure album. You're probably more well-read on the Cure than me so could you please, if possible, find an instance that's later to my source in which he explicitly identifies something other than Bloodflowers as his favourite Cure record (I've been unable to with a cursory google search)? While it's not unnusual for musical artists to cite their latest album at the time as being their favourite, the source I used was last updated in 2008 after 4:13 Dream had been released, and he does not acknowledge either that nor 2004's self-titled as being his favourite, and instead explicitly cites Bloodflowers. If he had cited the 2008 album as his favourite, it would be reasonable for us to assume that in, the absence of any other later quotation, that his favourite would change with each new subsequent album, but since he didn't cite his newest at that time as his favourite, unless we can find him changing his mind in a later interview, I think it is reasonable to the Bloodflowers quote there. Cheers. LaunchOctopus (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Northern England" in Goth Subculture

Hi, I saw we got in a bit of a disagreement on

WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES

.

I also honestly have no idea why you cited

WP:POINTY, because I'm not arguing against any policy? I'm trying to make fit better with what the sources say, which would put it better in line with policies. Thanks, no bad blood. Issan Sumisu (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

January 2022

Your recent editing history at Goth subculture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DonIago (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

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

Spirituals (Santigold album)

added links pointing to The Skinny and The Telegraph

Santigold

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Santigold, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dub.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Dispute resolution re. T.Rex (band)

A thread has been set up about this on the Dispute Resolution page. Romomusicfan (talk) 08:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard conclusion

Hi Woovee. (Cc From T.Rex article talk page)

In your absence the DRN thread has concluded with consensus between Netherzone and myself under moderator guidance to include a short paragraph about the "reunion" bands. As per the duscussion, should you disagree with our connsensus about - or should you choose to unilaterately revert or significantly modify - the text as we have agreed it, we will proceed to a Request For Comment discussion board topic about this article.

The thread is currently located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#T.Rex_(band) . I will post a reply with an updated URL once the discussion is archived.

EDIT: Here is the updated URL for the archived thread: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_227#T.Rex_(band). Romomusicfan (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copy of the thread, with only formatting modifications with regard to subheader heirarchy:

T.Rex (band)

– General close. See comments for reasoning.

Filed by Romomusicfan on 09:13, 5 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Closed. Two of the editors have made edits to the article that the third editor, who edits intermittently, has not disagreed with because they have not been editing. There was a rough consensus for their edits. If any editor disagrees, they should discuss their disagreement first, before reverting, because there has been rough consensus. If there is a resumption of disagreement, an the boomerang essay, but do not edit disruptively. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply ]

Closed discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Have you discussed this on a talk page? Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already. Location of dispute T. Rex (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Users involved Romomusicfan (talk · contribs) Woovee (talk · contribs) Netherzone (talk · contribs) Dispute overview Circa 2019 Woovee deleted sections relating to T.Rex reuinion projects WP:NOT and insinuating that I must be motivated by somehow being related to the musicians involved (I am not!) How have you tried to resolve this dispute before coming here? Talk:T. Rex (band)#RfC on Disputed Reformations section Talk:T. Rex (band)#A note/reference about T. Rex after Bolan's death: was it still a band How do you think we can help resolve the dispute? Immediate resolution is required about the validity of my tags of Woovee's statement including the Reason given. In the long term, resolution is required about whether the subject of these reunion bands should be covered in the T.Rex article or not. Summary of dispute by Woovee Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. Summary of dispute by Netherzone Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker. The timing of this is not great for me as I am travelling and in the middle of a vacation, and it is difficult (and unpleasant) for me to concentrate on a dispute at this time. I thought we cleared up this matter some time ago, and was surprised it has resurfaced. Briefly, my position is that the band did not "ultimately end" when Marc Bolan died. That the opinion of the writer Mark Paytress, who alegedly made that statement, does not make it "true" as various other band members went on to develop at least two tribute/spinoff bands, X-T.Rex and Mickey Finn's T-Rex. I believe that the position of the editor Romomusicfan who opened this discussion is correct the article should not make the claim that the band ultimately ended when Mark Bolan died, or that both POVs (the band ended/the band did not end) should be included and each be reliably sourced (with page numbers if applicable). Note: I re-read the DRN rules and have modified the sentence above so as to comment solely on content, and not on contributors. Netherzone (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I'm not even sure Paytress made such a statement, particularly in his second Bolan book as briefly cited. (If a page number and quote can be provided for authentication, that would be fair enough.) Romomusicfan (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I added the word "alegedly" to my statement above because it is not verifiable that Paytress actually made that claim at all; an extensive search of the book does not verify it. Even if it were found that Paytress made that statement, that is only one point of view. Would that not give balance, then both viewpoints should be included in the article, per "when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance." Netherzone (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply ] T.Rex (band) discussion Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary. Volunteer Note - There are two areas that need to be dealt with. The recent discussion has not been continuing long enough. So resume discussion at the article talk page. The filing party has not notified the other editors. Please notify them on their user talk pages. I am neither opening nor closing this case at this time. Try to discuss the issue for at least 24 hours with at least two more posts from each editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Hi, I thought it automatically notified the parties concerned. I have already notified Netherzone, I shall notify Woovee also.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have left a note on Woovee's talk page.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have allowed time for a response by Woovee. There has been none. Have made the first of my two posts as requested by Robert McClenon. If there is no response from Woovee either there or here, such that this thread ends up being closed or threatened with closure due to inacticvity (or whatever similar reason) I feel I would be well within my rights to revert Woovee's last reversion and reinstate the CN and Neutrality notes complete with reason tags. I don't want a revert war but all this silence could frankly be interpreted as Woovee having dropped any disagreement with my reasoning! Romomusicfan (talk) 17:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Statement one-half by moderator (T. Rex) The editors should read the usual rules, and should each make a statement saying that they agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules. If there is agreement for moderated discussion, we will proceed with moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Have done so below. Do Woovee and myself still need to get our remaining posts (my second and both of Woovee's) done on the talk page as requested by yourself above, or is that abandoned now? Romomusicfan (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Statement one-half by editors (T. Rex) I agree to moderated discussion subject to the usual rules.Romomusicfan (talk) 08:39, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] First statement by moderator (T Rex) I am opening this case for moderated discussion. Please read the rules again. Be civil and concise. Comment on content, not contributors. Discuss the article here rather than on the article talk page, and do not edit the article. I am asking each editor to state, in one paragraph, what they want changed in the article, or what they want left the same that someone else wants changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] First statements by editors (T Rex) Ideally I would like the "ultimately ended the band" sentence either taken out or replaced with something less definite along the lines of the band "deactivating" at the point of Bolan's death. Also a brief section (no more than a quick paragraph) on the subject of the two "revival" bands such as existed on the article prior to Woovee's 2018/2019 edits - probably in more concise form than the old version - should be input. As a compromise I would accept the existing wording with the CN and Neutrality tags with the Reason notes re. the "revival" bands - such as it was when I added the Reason notes - to be left up long term.Romomusicfan (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I would like to see the following three changes made: 1) Remove this sentence until or unless page numbers can be found in the Mark Paytress book for verification: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, his death ultimately ended the band.” As it stands, the latter part of the sentence after the comma cannot be verified through an online search, and thus may be original research or not a neutral point of view. 2) If a page number is found, the sentence may stand as written but should be balanced with another POV to achieve a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. I suggest the following: “As Bolan had been the only constant member of T. Rex and also the only composer and writer, music critic Mark Paytress states that Bolan’s death ended the band. However Billboard magazine states that “the group reformed with Finn, original band member Paul Fenton, and several new musicians. They performed all over Europe and were particularly popular in Germany. The group recorded an album, “Renaissance,” in 2000." [2] 3) Reinstate the former section on the two “revival bands” as seen here: [3] and improve the referencing such that each claim has a citation to a reliable source. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Second statement by moderator (T. Rex) Two editors have made statements as to what should be changed, and there seem to be two or so matters of agreement. Is there agreement to remove the sentence that ends in "ultimately ended the band"? Is there agreement to reinsert the section on revival bands? Does each editor have any other comments on the other suggestions? Does either editor have any specific other ideas for improvements to the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Second statements by editors (T. Rex) I would say that there is broad agreement between we two editors who have so far participated. (I am striving to make this point in a manner compliant with number 3 of the Rules.) However, we do both come from the same side of the discussion, so perhaps that is unsurprising. I would advocate turning the "ultimately ended" statement into a line saying the band disbanded rather than simply deleting the sentence The remainder of that paragraph is a very good section about the post band careers of T.Rex sidemen 1967-1973 and should be kept unchanged and unaffected by this edit. I would suggest that a second paragraph then be added to this section condensing the old Attempts At Reforming section down to bare bones. Romomusicfan (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] I agree 100% with Romomusicfan's statement and suggestions above. Netherzone (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Third statement by moderator (T. Rex) Three editors are listed as participating in this discussion. Two of the editors are mostly in agreement, and one has not edited in ten days. I am putting moderated discussion on hold for maybe a week, during which time the two editors may edit the article and may discuss their edits either here or on the article talk page. If the other editor returns and disagrees with their edits, moderated discussion can be reopened. Otherwise moderated discussion can be closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] If moderated discussion is closed and subsequently the other editor returns and the dispute resumes, what recourses will we then have? Romomusicfan (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Third statements by editors (T. Rex) Have made the edits as requested above by the moderator.Romomusicfan (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statement by moderator (T. Rex) If the other editor who has not edited in two weeks, with whom there were disagreements, returns and reverts the edits, or disagrees with them, a Request for Comments is probably the best approach. An RFC is often the best way of dealing with an editor who appears to be in a minority or editing against consensus, because it establishes a binding consensus. At this point, there has been normal editing of the article for four days. I will close the moderated discussion in between one and three more days. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] Fourth statements by editors (T. Rex) Back-and-forth discussion (T Rex) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Romomusicfan (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Goth subculture

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Goth subculture, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing periodical" error. References show this error when the name of the magazine or journal is not given. Please edit the article to add the name of the magazine/journal to the reference, or use a different citation template. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a

false positive, you can report it to my operator

. Thanks,

talk) 03:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Chronological order on post-punk

Hi Woovee, I'm just informing you that I reverted this edit of your's from last week because it interferes with

WP:OR, by saying artist before 1977 weren't post-punk, however the article already states that, it was not instated in the edit you reverted. Seeing as your problem is with the inclusion of artists like Suicide and Television being called post-punk, then your issue is with the contents of that section and you should delete those or move them to a "precursors" section, not make the article non-chronological. I hope this finds you well and you have a good day. Issan Sumisu (talk) 12:47, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

March 2024

welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Orphaned non-free image File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Kraftwerkcoldwave.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]