User talk:Twsx/junkyard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] What lands here

  • False warnings
  • Irrelevant accusations
  • Personal attacks and the like
  • Other nonsense, i.e. things added in bad faith that have no relevance to the topic at hand
  • Anything else you could consider "junk"

[edit] Stop

You are not only being a dick, going through my comtributions and changing all that stuff, but you are making some extremely ugly edits and acting like a child. Navnløs 00:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What a horribly incivil comment. The fact that you return your accusations to yourself, all by yourself, and the other fact that i should be in bed for at least an hour, pursuade me not to "answer" to any of your "comments". ~ | twsx | talkcont | 00:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Just ignore it. I'm going to warn him about his incivility. ScarianTalk 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


Twsx, I have reverted most of your edits referring to WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD as there is no information in these guidelines that back up the changes you have made. You are fixing things that are not broken, violating WP:POINT, pushing POV and I know this isn't the first time because I have brought it to your attention before; things we wikipedians see as pretty uncivil, dirupting and deconstructive. I will keep on reverting POV pushing, unfounded (or even worse: incorrectly founded) changes. Kameejl (Talk) 13:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Your argumentation is flawed. Let's say there really was nothing to back up my edits (which is not the case); Then you and Navlos would be in the very same position i am. Also, did you even read WP:POV and WP:POINT? Doesn't seem like it. PS: Your profound attempt at seperating us out with you "being a wikipedian" and me "not being one" is very very funny, because it proves your inability to talk about stuff in a respectful and mature way. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 15:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:POINT: "State your point; don't prove it experimentally". In this case you should discuss your point of view instead of changing articles ("prove it experimentally"). This topic (comma vs. line breaks) has been and is still being discussed on template_talk:Infobox Musical artist. Editing articles to only change line breaks to commas is pov pushing. There is no consensus on this subject yet. Discuss this topic, until consensus is reached, and change the policies/guidelines to support whatever infobox format. That is the wikipedia way.
WP:NPOV: Your point of view: comma delimited genres. My point of view: line break delimited genres. As you cannot prove your point of view is better (commas instead of line breaks) you cannot change articles to represent your view (a lay-out in this case). There is no neutral point of view yet (no consensus) so you are pushing pov.
PS. I never said you were no wikipedian. Your on wikipedia so you're a wikipedian. Please discuss the topic, not the people who discuss.
Refer to your very own comment. You get personal. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
PPS. The burden of proof is on you. Please quote parts out of WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD to justify your changes. I won't discuss this any further anywhere else than template_talk:Infobox Musical artist. Kameejl (Talk) 14:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Good! One point we agree on. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amon Amarth

Please don't start this edit war again. On this article you are clearly a minority wishing for comma separated genres. This is clearly pov pushing. The caps are now incorrect, you're not foxing anything. If it's your intention to restore the original lay out please consider restoring the first lay out of 28 dec 2006. Kameejl (Talk) 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you really read WP:EW and WP:POV? Your baseless accusations make it seem like you didn't, or didn't understand them. I am always open to talk about stuff, but please refrain from leaving false and aggravating incriminations and trivial or even untrue reasonings on my talk page, they are not what I want to spend time on on wikipedia. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
PS: I forgot to thank you for notifying me about the talk on the infobox. Sorry about that, and thanks again. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I known what an edit war is and I know what a point of view is.
  • A) If an editor thinks X is the right way, then that's the editor's point of view.
  • B) If an editor insists on having X in the article, and continuously edits articles and reverts edits so X is in the article and Y is not in the article, the editor is pushing his/her pov.
  • C) If an editor keeps on imposing his/her pov on an article (content or lay out wise, it doesn't matter) reverting edits again and again, the editor is participating in an edit war.
Do you really want me to point you to the edits where the editor in A, B an C is called Twsx, X=commas and Y=line breaks? Come on, be honest. Kameejl (Talk) 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
No objection on your wording. There is however a difference between your explanation and the policies carrying the name. Now you be honest (don't need you to, it's fact, but still): I am reverting your edits, you are reverting mine. If that constitutes as edit warring, it applies to you too. The difference between us two and Navlos is, i am not, and you don't seem to be either, steadily looking for things to revert. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I was reverting commas before I asked everybody to stop, since then, I've stopped. Kameejl (Talk) 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To Twsx: I don't look for things to revert, though. I only protected certain pages that had line breaks for a long time. The reason why me, Kameejl, CicafuciX and others are not "edit warring" is because we share consensus, which is a rule of wikipedia. You, however, are the only one that has the opinion that Amon Amarth needs comma breaks, which makes you the wrongdoer per WP:CON. Also I am giving you a Warning for being so uncivil with this comment, "Many arguments promoting commas have been brought up, yet not one single valid argument for line breaks has been given (yet, you have failed to give any arument that is not trivial such as "it looks better"), you are just too lazy or too ignorant to read." First of all, though, I have given many arguments better than "it looks better" and you either know this or are ignorant. Also, I don't need to give an argument AT ALL. Line breaks were around years before comma breaks were used, which means your side is the one that needs to explain. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Which, again, is no reason to keep it. And, again, your argumentation is flawed. I am not the only one speaking for commas (that argument is actually a new one, even from you) and there is no consensus as well (the discussion actually favours commas, so you failed to understand WP:CON which you so heroically quote alltogether). ~ | twsx | talkcont | 07:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dissection (band)

Please don't start this edit war again. Just like Amon Amarth the first lay out was not comma separated. The 156 user (156.34.214.123) changed it, and has now wisely stopped changing genre delimters. Kameejl (Talk) 19:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring on Amon Amarth and Dissection

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untitled

I can't even believe how many wrong things there are on this page about me. You view everything as offensive and derogatory don't you? I accuse you of something (in a no-nonsense but non-offensive way) and I'm being uncivil and rude right? PLEASE, that's ridiculous. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 20:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of nu metal bands

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. --neonwhite user page talk 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] February 2008

I'm kind of sorry that it's come to this, but you've been reported to WP:AN/3RR for edit warring, since we could not work out this situation ourselves. I am sorry, though, to some degree, because I don't think it's totally fair of me to do this as I already don't have much faith in the wikipedia system in terms of security and blocking people, etc. But I also know we could not have dealt with this dispute on our own. I do believe you deserve to be blocked, though, as you will not stop unless you are. This is purely preventative and I want no "bad blood" between us. I just want you to stop edit warring on those two pages so I (and you) can go back to editing shit that matters. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 00:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] How Aggravating

Your edits on the Sarcofago and Bathory pages are breaking WP:POV. Please stop. I only broke WP:POV once, which I apologized for. Though it does state on WP:MUSTARD about the decapitalization of genres it says nothing about separating the genres with commas. The majority of pages I have seen on wikipedia still have the line break between genres and it should stay that way. You cannot support your argument. There is no reason to accept your changes to what was a fine page before. I would'nt care except that not only can you not back up what you are saying but, when you comma separate the genres it looks ugly and the "law," so to speak, is on my side since no consensus has been reached on either line breaking or comma breaking.Navnløs 22:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what writing html has to do with this situation, but I assure you, I can write html.Navnløs 22:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
On a further note why do you call this a game? I find that offensive as I am taking this seriously and it is not a game.Navnløs 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Additionaly, why do you care so much about those two pages? It is not your area of expertise, and all your doing is changing the look of it slightly and it seems you're doing this just to aggravate me. Let it be, especially when it seems the way I am doing it (with the line breaks) is more popular...see pages such as Judas Priest, and please don't tell me you're gonna change that page now that I told you about it. This band, and many other famous early metal bands, list it the way I do (and I had nothing to do with it) so will you please leave them that way.Navnløs 22:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

See such pages as Thrash metal and Black metal,are you telling me you want to edit the music infoboxes there, too?? Seeing as how they go with the line break between genres???Navnløs 22:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Too drunk, will answer tomorrow. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 22:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

omg...and here you are thinking you're the constructive person? It would have been better if you had just waited till tomorrow to say anything at all...Navnløs 22:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Oh look, right there on the list Suggestbot sent you...right up there right on your talk page^...the band Darkane...and what's this? It has line breaking between genres in its music infobox!!! Since, you're too drunk to know what I'm talking about let's make this simple and I'll just put a link for you here: Darkane.Navnløs 22:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I first thought i'd answer to all of your messages individually, but since you don't really make a point, i'll just go through this quick:

  • POV? As far as I was aware, POV reflects editing behavoir regarding content, not wikification and similar. To be sure, i went over it again, and while there are some points regarding spelling (i.e. about British and American english) i still can't seem to understand that accusation. Please help me out.
  • My argument is supported, allthough not prescribed, by policies i have mentioned to you at least once.
  • We stand on opposite sides, yet we are in the same position. You have no reason to accept my edits, i have no reason to accept yours. While i can point out the already existing policy is sort of on my side, this very issue is still being debated without any kind of consensus, so we will just have to agree that we disagree. Your argument why you think my version is "bad", and you think "the law" is on your side is flawed.
  • About the "html thing" and the "game thing": I was already half way groggy when making those edits and should have refrained from editing, i apologize for that. To enhance my summary though: The break tags you added were not only unclosed, they were also written in capital letters, both of which is invalid by W3C standard.
  • How would you know what my area of expertise is? I am making those edits because i think it is right and the encyclopedia benefits from them, not to anger anyone. Allthough, you do enrage pretty fast, which is very entertaining after half a bottle of wine. And don't worry, i am not actively searching for pages to change the genre list on, i just do it whenever i happen to get across one of them. Please, though, be aware that i can keep editing this as long as i want, unless i am "officially" being told not to (as official i would consider an RFC/ANI), so no, i will not "please leave them that way".
  • I do think of myself as a constructive person, at least when it comes to editing on wikipedia. While "good" depends on oneselfs point of view, i do only make edits when i truely believe i am improving the things i change. You on the other hand were trying to disgrace a well-written article by adding your derogatory , NPOV-biased, generalized stereo nonsense. So if this is a question of beliefs, who is the constructive one and who isn't?

I am not even going into the incivil last of your paragraphs, all i'm going to say is that using the suggest bot does in no way require me to even look at the article, i just thought i'd try the bot out, and have yet not found the time to look into the suggestions.

  • For you: WP:CIVIL, WP:OMGWTFBBQ. You may also want to read up on policies before accusing someone of breaking them.

I am honestly looking forward to reading your reply. And please excuse spelling and syntax mistakes, i am kind of having a hangover and still have to work. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 08:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...really

I refuse to continue this silly conversation anymore. You seem to very opinionated (not that I'm not). As for me looking at those two guidelines...civil? I was civil, I only pointed out the fact that you were drunk (which you said yourself) and that this was exasperating. As for the other guideline, I used no abbreviations except WP:POV, which I knew you already knew as you also accused me of this, and WP:MUSTARD which you kept telling me to look at, and I did.Navnløs 18:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought we were done with this. Look no consensus has been reached on either the line break or comma break, but why do you insist on the comma break. It looks messy, whereas the line break looks ordered.Navnløs 19:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • CEASE EDITIING-I have taken our issue to be sorted out, becuase I really want to find out which way is the correct one. Until then we should not edit those pages anymore.Navnløs 19:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look messy at all, it's more tidy and informative, and takes less space. "CEASE EDITIING" - No. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 20:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think it looks more tidy or informative at all...when the genres are clearly listed on the side one-by-one your eyes sweep over them more easily, and they're not all packed together like sardines, not to mention, in the music infobox, nothing else is listed in such a manner (comma break), so when one thing IS listed in comma break form (like the genres) it looks untidy and sticks out like a sore thumb.Navnløs 22:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I believe the comma break sticks out like a sore thumb because every other section in the music infobox for bands (associated acts, labels, members, former members) uses a line break and is listed on a one-by-one basis, so why should'nt the genres be listed on a one-by-one basis? I realize this takes up more room and makes the info musicbox longer, but not by much, in fact, it gets barely any longer at all.Navnløs 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Nouns. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 22:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

oh okay you're saying associated acts, labels, members, former members are nouns. Well isn't a noun a person, place, thing or idea? I would say black metal is a thing or idea...its a concept of music. Perhaps not a thing, but surely genres are an idea or sorts. I mean you can say "I like rock.", well where is the noun in that sentence...I see a subject "I" and a verb "like" AND a noun "rock." It just like saying "I like rock music," but its understood you can just say "rock" or "rap."Navnløs 22:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

So you indeed did NOT read the policies regarding genres... ~ | twsx | talkcont | 22:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

OMG, NO, I DID! Did you see anywhere in my last reply that said they should be capitalized??? I happen to think it looks nicer, but I get the whole capitalization thing. What I really want is the line break, nvm the capitalization.Navnløs 22:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Amon Amarth

Navnløs (talk · contribs) and Twsx (talk · contribs) are banned from editing this article for 30 days, or until they settle their differences in the lamest edit war ever. Violations of the editing ban will be met with blocking (24 hours per violation). The ban may be lifted by the two editors posting to my talk page or WP:ANI that they have reached an agreement over their dispute. If there is no agreement, the ban ends in 30 days and any editor may remove this notice at that time. However, expect resumption of the edit war to be dealt with severely. For more information see [1]. Thatcher 19:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal bands. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. asenine say what? 17:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, thank you. I am aware, though. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 17:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)