User talk:4TheWynne

A barnstar for you!

	AFLW Barnstar
	For work on the AFLW articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Nina Morrison

On 26 February 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nina Morrison, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Nina Morrison was nominated for the 2019 AFL Women's Rising Star award on debut – but suffered a season-ending knee injury in training the next week? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Morrison. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Nina Morrison), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

My edits on ...And Justice for All

Hi, the edit I made on the ...And Justice For All page was removed, however I don't think it should have been removed. ...And Justice for Jason is an edited version of the album that provides actual audio of the bass track from the album. There are several existing parts of the article that already discuss the missing bass track, and this would provide readers the ability to hear the album with the audible bass track. Elasticat (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Elasticat, unfortunately that isn't what Wikipedia is supposed to be for, which is why the edit was unnecessary. I know all about the video – I refer to it all the time for my bass covers. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:34, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Small favour

I have Template:Did you know nominations/2019 AFL Women's Grand Final up for review at DYK. If you could review it, that would be great. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Hawkeye7. I appreciate you asking, but I don't think I have time at the moment – I think I've had enough of an involvement in contributing to the article anyway that I may not be the best person to ask. Maybe ask someone who wasn't involved at all, like Allied45 or Aspirex? Thanks, though. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Load talk page

Joshua, please explain to me what it was that I did wrong on the Talk page of Metallica's Load? I directly quoted a passage that quoted James Hetfield and was on the main article page. If the passage that I quoted was incorrect then perhaps you should look at taking that down, no? Also, please tell me what the Talk page is for if not to foster a constructive discussion? I don't view that as vandalism. I don't know if there is an equivalent in Australia, but in the United States we have the First Amendment. Feel free to look it up if you're unfamiliar with the concept. Only fascists threaten to shut down viewpoints that they don't agree with by using censorship, banning, and book burning. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:07, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

FiggazWithAttitude, in what way was taking a random quote and adding "pretending, yeah, right... Cheers!" at the end "fostering a constructive discussion" – what were you actually trying to do/achieve? It looked like vandalism to me, as it would have to countless others who might have seen it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:23, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Joshua - you obviously took the brave and honorable course of action and removed it - instead of asking me to expound on what I was saying.

As I said, it was not a random quote but directly POSTED ON THE MAIN ARTICLE PAGE BY SOMEONE ELSE.

Since you ask NOW (what were you actually trying to do/achieve?) - I think that the quote by Hetfield is the first I've heard that and if anyone could expound upon it I would appreciate it. Now I'll never get that chance because you have taken it upon yourself to silence that discussion.

I'm so glad that there are people like you looking out for "countless others". Keep up the good work, you're the winner. Cheers! FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

FiggazWithAttitude, if you want to start a talk page discussion, do it properly – start a new section instead of just adding to a random section that has little/nothing to do with the topic you want to bring up. I highly doubt that anybody was ever going to look at what you put on the talk page and actually think that you were asking what the quote meant/for anyone to elaborate on it. I didn't silence any discussion, as there wasn't one in the first place, but that still doesn't mean that you can't go back and start a discussion properly, as it's not like you've been blocked or are being prevented from accessing the page – I don't know why you're saying "Now I'll never get that chance". Additionally, I don't see what you've got to gain from responding on different talk pages to comments which are several years old, as the users who posted those comments will likely not be here to see them. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 12:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

4TheWynne Thank you so much for your permission to proceed, you're a real mensch. Yes, you did silence the discussion by removing it within 12 hours of my posting it and threatening to block/ban me. But, that's all behind me now. Peace out. FiggazWithAttitude (talk) 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

FiggazWithAttitude, alright, sour grapes, enough with the sarcasm – there was no threat, just a caution (for what appeared to be vandalism), and that's all. You don't need to ping users on their own talk pages, as they are automatically notified when they get new messages. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

My edit on Megadeth

Recently I edited on Megadeth’s page and you deleted all of it, I replaced heavy metal with thrash, I specified and included the two songs that were banned.70.15.64.235 (talk) 02:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

The song titles didn't need to specified, as they were already mentioned in the body of the article. You don't change genres to suit your point of view (and you didn't even do it properly), and there was already a consensus in place about which genre to use in the opening sentence. You also don't need to link Metallica a second time (per WP:OVERLINK), as it's linked only three words earlier in the paragraph. Lastly, stop mucking around on my talk page – next time you want to start a discussion on a talk/user talk page, click on "New section" at the top of the page, and finish your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Don't just edit at the top of the page thinking that's where it belongs or that's the only way I'm going to be able to see it. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t “change genres to my suit my point of view” it says right in the beginning of the page that they are part of the big four *thrash* bands70.15.64.235 (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know that Megadeth is one of the big four, but there is a consensus in place to use "heavy metal" in the opening sentence for Metallica, Megadeth and Anthrax, as those bands have explored different metal genres in their respective careers. Slayer was discussed, but it was agreed just to use "thrash metal" in both the opening sentence and the infobox, as they've been almost consistently thrash metal. Just because they're one of the big four, doesn't mean you should just change whatever's in the opening sentence to "thrash metal" – that can easily be misconstrued as you just changing the genre to suit your point of view, particularly if you don't explain why when you make the edit. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Undo Edit of Gary Ablett Jr Page

Hi 4The Wynne,

I made a couple of edits to SoG's page that were undone. I feel that they should have been left and perhaps applied to similar pages. The change of wording 'for' in place of 'after' for finals series background colours is the correct grammar. After the finals series, by definition, is after the finals and the Home & Away matches inclusive. Using the preposition 'for' limits the stats to the finals matches only. This is consistent with the use of 'for' in the first category 'Led the league for the season only'

In actual fact, the three categories for stats should be 'Home & Away Matches', 'Finals Matches' and 'Season Matches' (Both H&A and finals combined) since these are the matches which determine the AFL Premiership Season. The AFL season should not be construed to include pre-season matches, interstate matches or International Rules matches even though some of these appearances contribute to a players stats for the year as well.

As far as the background colour of the stats are concerned, Gary Ablett Jr led the league for Brownlow votes in the years when he won the Brownlow. Why wouldn't the background colour be used to reflect that achievement? Why delete the colour? I did make an observation about the possibility of winning the Brownlow with less votes than another player but this did not occur in either season when GA Jr won the medal.

Please consider re-instating the amendments that I applied.

Please consider if these amendments might be applied more generally.

Please consider changing to 'Home & Away' to describe matches for premiership points rather than the conflicted term 'Season' matches.

Appreciate your time, Malchemist (talk) 08:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Malchemist, clearly you didn't understand what I said in my edit summary. The "after finals only" colour doesn't apply to the finals series only (hence why "for" isn't used) – it's only used if a player leads a statistic after the finals series, but didn't lead that statistic after the home-and-away season. For example, a player that plays for a bottom-four side might lead disposals during the home-and-away season (in which case the "after season only" colour is used), but then might be overtaken by a player playing in a finals team – the "after finals only" colour would then be used for that player, as they didn't lead the statistic after the home-and-away season but did after the finals series, hence why the wording "after finals only" is used. There is no colour that applies just to the finals series.

As for the Brownlow colour, as I alluded to, the votes were changed from a separate table and instead added to the same statistics table (though it hasn't been applied to all articles yet), and when this happened, it was never discussed whether we'd keep the two colours (winner and ineligible) that were used at the old table, and so they were just excluded. You also can't just add a random colour without adding something explaining what the colour's for – I know it used to be formatted that way in an older table, but you can't expect a new reader who isn't familiar with the old formatting to know this.

Anyway, if you disagree with any of these particular formats, please bring it up at the WikiProject talk page (WT:AFL) so that they can be discussed properly, rather than just ask me to change them. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for responding,

You are correct that I did not understand your thoughts re the original undo. If the stats were colour coded based on the terms you suggest, then why are there three categories;

Led the league for the season only,

Led the league after finals only,

Led the league after season and finals

Using your logic, the final two categories are the same, so one is redundant. The inclusion of "...finals only" conflicts with the explanation as well.

As regards the background colour in the Brownlow votes column, I just applied the colour stipulated in the legend at the top of the table. It was NOT a random colour.

Applying a stated, and presumably agreed, colour is not an issue for the WikiTalk page. Maybe the wording of a confused legend is, but to my mind it is a minor grammatical edit.

However, I agree that changing/clarifying whether use of 'Home and Away' for the preliminary rounds of the season may be best addressed there, so I won't pursue that further on this page.

Thank you for your thoughts, Malchemist (talk) 22:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Malchemist, the second and third categories aren't the same... I'll repeat, "after finals only" is only used if a player leads a statistic after the finals series, but didn't lead that statistic after the home-and-away season (hence "finals only" – how exactly does that conflict with anything?); "after season and finals" is used when a player leads a statistic after the home-and-away season and still leads that statistic after the finals series. I think it's pretty straightforward, and don't see how it's a "confused legend". Regarding the Brownlow colour, I never said that you used a random colour – I was just explaining what you'd need to do to add the "winner" colour as part of the table (the colour that you used only applies to statistics, so you wouldn't use that colour for Brownlow votes). As I said, though, it wasn't agreed to use colours in the votes column as part of the amended table, so if you want to change that (or any of the issues that you've brought up – you can't otherwise just change what you think isn't important enough to be discussed), please discuss at WT:AFL. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Burn My Eyes

Hi 4TheWynne....

I made an edit on the article for the Machine Head album Burn My Eyes. I removed alternative metal from the infobox because it was in the AllMusic genre sidebar, then you reverted my edit and left a message on my talk page saying that my edit did not have a valid reason and "does not appear to be constructive". Then I made a couple attempts to add in some genres with sources I thought were usable, but those got turned down. So why do I keep removing alternative metal? Because 1. THAT'S NOT WHAT THE ALBUM IS!! It's really groove/thrash metal, but of course those can't be added without sources, right?? If one of their albums was considered alternative metal, it would most likely be either Supercharger or Catharsis. 2. The rules about using sources clearly state in its exact words: "AllMusic's genre sidebar should be avoided. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that they can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the sidebar." I'm guessing you never read those rules clearly or you think the sidebar has some reliable potential. So rather than continuing the edit fight even further, I would suggest starting a new discussion at WP:ALBUMS and/or RSN talking about whether the AllMusic sidebar should actually be used for genres or not. If the admins agree with you and decide to use the sidebar, then you may keep the alternative metal. If the admins say no to the sidebar, then those genres are out. Please take your time to consider this. Thank you and good day....SirZPthundergod9001 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

SirZPthundergod9001, or, alternatively, you could just find some better sources (and by better sources, I mean reliable sources which clearly state that the album is <genre>, not the band or anything else). Yes, the guideline regarding AllMusic states that the review should take precedence over the sidebar, but the reviewer doesn't give the album a genre in his review, so the sidebar is the only thing that you can use in this particular case, and the guideline doesn't recommend what to do in this instance. In short, I don't have the time to bring that up in a discussion. If you think it's really groove and thrash metal, great, but so what? Just find some reliable sources, whether they be describing the album by those genres or different ones, and then they can replace the genres currently in the infobox (because at least there's a source of some reliability there). 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

You can't ever use the sidebar in AllMusic. Period. Full stop. That's the consensus on WikiProject Albums. If AllMusic doesn't give a genre in its review, it is unusable outside of critical reception. AllMusic does give evidence for thrash metal: "Machine Head's full-length debut, Burn My Eyes, successfully bridges the gap between second-generation Bay Area thrash (Testament, Death Angel, etc.) and the modern-day Pantera school of hard knocks." dannymusiceditor ^oops 13:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

DannyMusicEditor, that still isn't explicitly calling the album thrash metal, but that's fine – I'm fine with the state of things now. 4TheWynne^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Metallica timeline

Had no idea about that revert 22 hours ago A.R.M. 10:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Updating of the Queensland Rail fleet status

Hello Joshua, Thank you for editing the edits I made to the Queensland Rail page, this is some of my first edits to Wikipedia so it is greatly appreciated to see people refining and generally making my work better. One thing to note on your edits though, as of yesterday (Wednesday 4/09/19) EMU 01 now residies with QR heritage at Ipswich, effectively making it part of the heritage fleet, I added this to reflect the change.

Thanks again Reef — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reef Thomspon (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Reef Thompson, no worries. I understand, but a better way to go about it would be to wait until the entire fleet is no longer in service (and moved to the "Former City Network fleet" section) and then mention in the notes that EMU01 is stored at Ipswich – there's no point having the same train listed twice. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 05:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

QR "vandalism".

I did not vandalize anything, lol. I added information based on media sources. Perhaps you should be the one banned from editing. Kerrylaw61 (talk) 12:51, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Kerrylaw61, do you think I'm stupid or something? If you're not here to contribute constructively, either leave Wikipedia or continue down this path and be blocked. 4TheWynne (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Wanted to know why the editing was removed

	Wanted to know why the editing was removed
	Hi there! Can you please let me know why my editing is removed by you. TopBlogIndia (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2019 (UTC)