User talk:Morpheus12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Retort to your emo comments

"I was trying to document what I have seen and experienced"

It's not my policy. It's Wikipedia's: Wikipedia:No original research. We are disallowed from including content that hasn't already been published by a reputable source. And don't be so arrogant to claim that you're the only source - it's not like nobody was publishing zines in DC in the mid-80s.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article, you'd notice that it already talks about what you were getting at: that fans of original emo detest that "emo" is used to describe something else. It's a legitimate opinion, one that I share.

But your version blatantly violates WP:NPOV. Emo is what it is, it's what people decide it is, it's a decade too late to claim that one thing is emo and everyone else is full of shit. -- ChrisB 04:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Hi, I have removed most of the content of the article Current (band). This had clearly been taken from another website (councilrecords.com), but no indication was given that Wikipedia had permission to use the material in accordance with the GFDL license, so I had to remove it.

I also removed a couple of sentences from Mohinder, although not the whole article; the original material is still there.

If you have permission to distribute this material under the GFDL, please indicate this and restore the article(s). Please do not restore the articles unless you have such permission, however. Thanks.

Fourohfour 12:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

(Reply originally posted at my page):

Your edits to these categories were pointless. These were two very small independent bands that broke up over 10 years ago.

That's irrelevant. The material I removed had apparently been taken from another website with no explanation or indication that permission (under the GFDL) to copy had been granted.

If you're the original author, or have permission to use it under the GFDL, it's fine for you to reinstate the material, as long as you make the copyright status clear.

I've only been using wikipedia for a couple of weeks, but I already realized what a sham it is. The problem is the one size fits all methodology that seems to rule it. For example, I've been posting and editing about hardcore/punk related topics, I don't mean to be self-promoting but I'm an expert on what I've edited, yet my contributions that are CORRECT are repeatedly taken down (they may be somewhat POV but I'm trying to not do that as much as I can).

That's got nothing to do with me. I removed the material because it had apparently been copied from elsewhere with no explanation given. Nothing more. Fourohfour 18:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The internet needs an encyclopedia that is truly participatory and self-editing (democratically so) not this poor excuse for encyclopedia Britannica, Wikipedia. User:Morpheus12

[edit] Current (band)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Current (band), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Dane ^~nya 11:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)