Jump to content

User talk:FMSky

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Shaneymike (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 16 March 2023 (→Link to Reed Mullin: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

It doesn't make sense

It doesn't make sense, because according to this reasoning on every page the captions should end with a period, very few captions are fragmented sentences. I don't understand. I made a lot of changes changing the captions. At this point you should carefully check all captions on all pages I've edited, and not just my own edits. JackkBrown (talk) 10:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPFRAGS is pretty clear though... If you're not sure just dont edit captions i guess --FMSky (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: That's why it would be correct for you to check all the pages I edited and not just my edits on these pages, because surely other sentences need the end point. Reverting only my changes (which are not all errors, so don't use rollback), the page would still contain misses. JackkBrown (talk) 10:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll maybe do that later, but in the meantime pls only edit captions when you're 100% sure --FMSky (talk) 10:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
also this: "This page is full of captions that, in your opinion, need the point. Either we change all the captions, or we proceed to leave the dots only when the caption has more sentence" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stan_Laurel&diff=prev&oldid=1128096565 is complete nonsense and not how it works. Just because one caption has a full stop at the end of it doesnt mean EVERY picture needs to have one and vice versa --FMSky (talk) 10:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@FMSky: Thank you very much. A few times I corrected obvious errors; I didn't just edit captions all the time. I am staying put, when you had checked everything, I will only proceed if I am 100% sure; at the moment I'm staying put. JackkBrown (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i know, and i didnt revert any of your other edits, just the misplaced periods --FMSky (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been wrong in the past and wouldn't know how to correct. In order to avoid correcting wrongly, I rely on your experience. Without pressure, I await a review of all my changes from you. I avoid making new edits so you can take your time. Thanks. Have a nice day. JackkBrown (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can still contribute lol, your other edits were productive. --07:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
That's not entirely true; for example, my edits on "Gandhi", "Eminem" and "Madonna" don't seem to me to be correct. JackkBrown (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway you're really good. I have seen your contributions, you are an excellent resource, really well done. JackkBrown (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected my mistake on "Eminem" and a glaring error on "Gandhi". Please check my other edit (not sure if it's correct) on "Gandhi" and all my past edits on "Madonna". Thank you very much. JackkBrown (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JackkBrown: as requested i went through the rest of your edits and corrected the ones that were wrong (wasnt that many). should be ok now --FMSky (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I'm dubious here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127765987; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonna; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikola_Tesla and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Democratic_Party_(Italy)_leadership_election. JackkBrown (talk) 04:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote my message too early and overlooked your newest edits. I've corrected them now, that should be all --FMSky (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only this remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Democratic_Party_(Italy)_leadership_election. From now on I will edit captions only after carefully reading the caption guidelines. JackkBrown (talk) 04:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done 👍--FMSky (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_hall; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groves_family. It may be okay, but it could also be that something is not right. Sorry for "clogging up" your talk. 😅 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackkBrown (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are both fine, they were correctly removed -- FMSky (talk) 05:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1127789523. I think that's a complete sentence. JackkBrown (talk) 06:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes but this pic isnt even in the article anymore-- FMSky (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>>> This is not to check my past contributions, but to take a peek at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elon_Musk, because it's constantly being edited and, for example, all the captions do not have a period, which is strange; I consider you a very experienced user, and I can't touch such a sensitive page without being 1000% sure. I won't "bother" you anymore. 😅 JackkBrown (talk) 07:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nah its fine, and i now added the full stops wherer its needed. i think i initally missed that article --FMSky (talk) 07:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_1992_Final and this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Keating. The past changes are (finally) finished! JackkBrown (talk) 08:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are both fine, i already looked over them ;) --FMSky (talk) 08:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The match was played at the Ullevi (pictured in 2006) in Gothenburg" is a complete sentence, if I'm not mistaken. JackkBrown (talk) 09:23, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, fixed now --FMSky (talk) 09:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only this remains: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2004_Final; "The Greece team celebrate their win". JackkBrown (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

done --15:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"The Greece team celebrate their win" is a complete sentence, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway it's really finished now. Thanks for everything 👍🏻. JackkBrown (talk) 15:36, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand if I have learned. It's not a check. Changes on Mbappé: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1128546248; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1128680720. JackkBrown (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
both correct 👍 --FMSky (talk) 12:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a doubt here. I don't want to make mistakes. I also want to make sure I really learned: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1129090392 JackkBrown (talk) 14:46, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
was correct, its not a full sentence --FMSky (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could remove the links (overlinks) here: Musk discussing a Neuralink device during a live demonstration in 2020, and here: Musk before a Model X at the 2014 Tesla Inc. annual shareholder meeting? These are two captions. Elon Musk (there's total protection). JackkBrown (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its better to keep those in imo, Model X and Neuralink arent easily understood so the links are helpful --FMSky (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But in the text (I'm not talking about the caption) there's a link to the same word, so, for example, Neuralink is present both in the caption and in the text, about 2 lines apart. JackkBrown (talk) 22:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its still helpful to have them in captions imo, cause that's where people look first most of the time --FMSky (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I get it. The edits on "Dani Alves" should be perfect, I'm 99.9% sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dani_Alves. JackkBrown (talk) 15:29, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
yes they're correct, i think you've figured it out ;)=--FMSky (talk) 20:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm insecure about the captions here. Could you check the whole page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volodymyr_Zelenskyy# — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackkBrown (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2022 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

i've checked it, should be ok now --FMSky (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm undecided here, especially in the second caption: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Candreva. JackkBrown (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

should be ok now --FMSky (talk) 02:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here too I'm dubious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guillermo_Ochoa. I take this opportunity to wish you a happy new year; a big 2023 to you and en.wiki! JackkBrown (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks man, same to you! i checked the article and corrected the 2 captions --FMSky (talk) 13:49, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I corrected the captions in "LeBron James", but here I have strong doubts: "James posterizing former Cleveland teammate Kevin Love in a game against the Cavaliers on March 21, 2022." JackkBrown (talk) 15:03, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JackkBrown, I'm not FMSky but I'll reply anyway. That caption should not have a full stop. It lacks a real verb. It would need a full stop if the sentence read "James is posterizing […]", "James was posterizing […]", "James posterizes […]" etc. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Robby.is.on: Thanks a lot, I'll fix that caption too. JackkBrown (talk) 17:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Classical Education

Hello there!

Due to your edits to the page on classical education, I was wondering if you yourself are classically educated. If so, you would be the only Wikipedia user I know who is classicaly educated (other than me).

Justyouraveragelechuga my talk page 21:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now i'm not, that was just a drive-by edit by me to do some basic formatting etc that i do to a lot of pages --FMSky (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About user Progrock70s

This guy... there's a good chance he edited on Thin Lizzy 1971 album page and other pages using IPs (from Iran) like 151.246.120.235. On 25/12 at 7:52 he was blocked by Materialscientist, the block lasted 31 hours, then the block ended 26/12 at 14:52, during the time he was blocked, some iran IPs continued to edit like him. I'm not lying about that and I'm not lying about his block and you can see that. One more thing, this IP 151.246.120.235 is blocked, it was blocked on 26/12. With all that I said, if he really used IPs while blocked to continue editing on that page, could he be blocked for not respecting the block time? 2804:1054:4010:70A0:B54B:3837:1EEB:6D28 (talk) 08:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your recent edit on Darwin Núñez 😅

I’ve replaced the source. Now the only thing out of date is the World Cup 2022. Scientelensia (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah but its still wrong, nunez is a lot of things but surely not known for his technical abilities --FMSky (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would disagree, Nunez really knows how to volley a ball (think Uruguay vs Norway game) and has great dribbling and potential. Admittedly his first touch isn’t amazing but he can do skills such as stepovers Scientelensia (talk) 21:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friend, Pele was regarded as GOAT by Fifa. The link taken to the fifa website was deleted. Don't you think he didn't regard as GOAT anymore by Fifa? I think it will be biased for footballers to call them Goat by Fifa. Understanding this, they may deleted that post completely. Thus. Though they deleted from their site, in web archive it will remain forever.

So, shouldn't you delete that line quoted "Regarded as one of the greatest players of all time and labelled "the greatest" by FIFA," in Pelé???? HridoyKundu (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

actually you might be right.. i didnt realize that the original article is down, so it does indeed seem like fifa doesnt consider him the greatest anymore. it should probably be discussed on the talk page though --FMSky (talk) 10:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, FMSky!

Happy New Year!

FMSky,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --FMSky (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, FMSky!

Happy New Year!

FMSky,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ⋠T⋡ 02:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

short description is misplaced

short description must be updated on top of article. see layout. visually it does not change anything, however it plays an important role in search results. your edit, short description is not on top of article. placement info Wikipedia:Short_description#Placement. thank u. <_> jindam, vani (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i wasnt the one who inserted a short description into this article. it was this guy https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gisela_Trowe&diff=953756969&oldid=942324189 --FMSky (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

Information icon You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

hello, are the captions here correct? The points. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Italy. 5.91.21.19 (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only one was wrong, i've corrected it --FMSky (talk) 09:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Body Count

Can you please review the sources? Saying "they aren't" a genre without looking at the sources just makes it sound like you have an opinion that conflicts with the sources cited, and commenting "not you again" isn't constructive. I would really like to collaborate with you, but you seem intent on working against me rather than with me. My edits were based on reliable sources, listed below. Check the quotes.

  • Reeves, Mosi (May 6, 2020). "THE UNKILLABLE BODY COUNT: INSIDE ICE-T'S RELENTLESS "GRINDHOUSE" METAL BAND". For those who don't know the whole story, the saga of Body Count is one of rock's great cautionary tales. A Los Angeles reality rapper starts a heavy-metal group with his neighborhood homies.

Also, I did not find sources calling Body Count a hardcore punk, thrash metal or groove metal band. I searched Google to find reliable sources to back up what was in the article and made changes I felt were necessary based on the sources. You can't just revert every edit I make because you disagree with them. If you have an issue with my edits, talk to me instead of attacking me. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heavy metal is just the umbrella term for the subgenres you listed. its like saying "rock band" or something. it doesnt mean that this genre should be listed in the infobox. please stop going into articles you never visited before and completely rewriting them. i havent reverted one of your edits in like half a year, its just that this band was on my watchlist--FMSky (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It just seems to me like you didn't actually look at the sources cited. You keep reverting to restore unsourced content because you disagree with what the sources say. Also, I don't understand your edit description on Body Count (album) being "it's a featured article" -- because it's featured the unsourced content is any less unsourced? I would really like to understand your thought process for interpreting the sources, because you're saying that direct quotes don't say what quotes don't directly say? I don't understand why you removed sources and sourced content. I'm really trying to see the good faith in your edits. What is your reasoning behind saying that directly quoting reliable sources is not good for discussing a topic and it's good to list not what journalists and critics say but what the editors think is true? Should we be doing away with sources entirely in your opinion? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

heavy metal is just the umbrella term for the subgenres you listed. its like saying "rock band" or something. it doesnt mean that this genre should be listed in the infobox. --FMSky (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really struggling to understand the justification behind this edit. These were the sources cited:

You also removed the archive URLs I added because many of the citations go to dead pages, so you couldn't verify the content being cited before. I looked for a source calling the album Body Count a crossover thrash album and didn't find one. If you have one, can you share it with me and add it to the article? Why are the sources calling the album rap metal, hard rock and heavy metal invalid? Are Revolver, Robert Christgau/Playboy and Entertainment Weekly unreliable sources? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 23:53, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have now added sources to the infobox genres if it makes you feel better (its normally completely unnecessary and should usually to be avoided per WP:INFOBOXCITE, especially when it is already cited in the text, but whatever) -- FMSky (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to bring up about your edits. It isn't about the presence of citations, it's about the sources not backing up what was presented. For example, you're saying that this source calls Body Count a groove metal band, except it doesn't. It says that the album Manslaughter is a groove metal album and calls Body Count a "heavy metal ensemble". This source is used to classify BC as a hardcore punk band, but it says "Body Count was the first to make recordings that gave to the plight of the inner cities a soundtrack of loud guitars with hardcore punk attitude", which doesn't mean that they are a hardcore punk band. This citation was given for classifying them as thrash metal, but it actually says that the album Carnivore contains "wild flourishes of thrash and hardcore", not that Body Count is a thrash metal band. The changes you reverted were based on the sources explicitly identifying the band as part of a style or saying that individual albums are in styles which may be separate from what the band is classified as. And you haven't addressed the reverts done to the individual album pages. Your edit justifications don't address anything cited in the sources, you just keep saying "it's not what these sources say" but you haven't added sources that back up the claims. I really don't understand these justifications. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think "Albums That Rock" is a reliable source. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this source says "the thrash metal/gangsta rap fusion of Body Count". Meaning that their style fuses thrash metal and gangsta rap, not that it's calling Body Count a thrash metal band. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please stop it. seriously, stop --FMSky (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
changed up the sources again, is it ok for you now =) ??--FMSky (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(please see WP:GWAR for the future) --FMSky (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How is "please stop it" a civil response to the issues I'm bringing up? Another example of an edit you made. This source doesn't say that they are a hardcore punk band, it says "hardcore band" which is vague. The disambiguation page hardcore lists several other genres with the name hardcore, including Hardcore hip hop, Digital hardcore and Breakbeat hardcore. The sources have to be more clear to verify the content. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im not gonna comment on your edit behavior anymore because it will likely get me into trouble. im just gonna say that i have changed it up again and it should be ok now --FMSky (talk) 00:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed any of the concerns I brought up, particularly surrounding the removal of sourced content in this edit. You also seem to miss the point that it's not about "changing it up", it's about verifying the claims made in the article. There was a reason why I used quotes in the citations I added, so that readers could verify that what is being written is actually what the citations actually say. Your edits haven't done that and in a few citations, you added sources that don't verify what the citations were given for. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

read WP:GWAR as well as WP:SPA please --FMSky (talk) 00:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So are you identifying as a genre warrior or a single purpose account? Is that your explanation for your edits? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but just a general advice: instead of going to articles and replacing the genres that are already there with the ones you prefer, why not look up sources for the ones that are already there? this would be a lot more helpful --FMSky (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do look up sources. I have never made an edit to replace a genre with one I prefer, that is what you are doing. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to bring up something else in the reverts you made. Under Body_Count_(album)#Conception, you reverted the addition of free images of members of the band and restored a non-free image. You're not supposed to use non-free images to represent individuals, and while there could arguably be justification for using a non-free photograph when some of the people in the photograph are deceased, I'm not sure a watermarked image from a CD booklet is the best way to represent any people. I'm really not seeing the fair use rationale for that picture, especially when the two living members of that band line-up have free pictures available. Also, the previous revision had a clarification needed tag for the sentence "Body Count was formed out of this interest" and I had rewritten the sentence to add clarification, and you removed the text, with the edit summary only saying "this is a featured article", which doesn't explain why the sentence that was tagged as needing a rewrite shouldn't be rewritten. You do understand that when the article was reviewed for a featured article, it was a long time ago and it has to maintain the changing standards of reliability and verification to continue having a standard of quality, right? Just because an article is featured doesn't mean it has to stay frozen in time without anyone making any necessary changes to improve the quality standards in small areas where there might need a fine tune, like explaining what "formed out of this interest" means. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 00:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the picture has a valid non-free use rationale so i dont see the issue in using it there. it shows that band members how they looked back then instead of having a current photo in there --FMSky (talk) 01:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does this even mean? You haven't provided any justification for removing content. I brought up several points regarding a sentence that was already tagged as needing clarification, and there was also a link to an audio file that no longer exists on Wikipedia that you've restored for no clear reason. Can you please explain why you removed sourced content? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what even is the problem with that article? which non-free file? the tagged sentence was already changed. it seems like your looking for issues where there arent any

Another question, "The album was released on March 31, 1992, on compact disc, vinyl, and audio cassette" went back in the conception/background section. I had moved it down to the release section, because the sentence is more relevant to the discussion of the distribution rather than the section about recording the album/forming the band. So why did you move it back? RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

feel free to redo these small improvements, i just mainly wanted to get the article back to featured article status. but before making large changes to whole sections, it should be discussed on the talk page. im still struggling to see what the issues even areFMSky (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

About this edit to Body_Count_(album)#Lyrical_themes. You restored text that was sourced to the album's lyrics sheet. The text I had removed was original research, as the analysis of the lyrics was not backed up by reliable third party sources. This text places the quality standards below featured quality, as there needs to be a third party source making these points rather than Wikipedia making points that aren't backed up by third party reliable sources. You're saying that the conclusions the text jumps to is backed up by a lyric sheet or a music video? Where are the sources saying for example that the images used in the music video mean what the text here says they are supposed to mean? You're not supposed to jump to these conclusions, you're supposed to cite third party texts backing up the arguments you're presenting. Good sources for these claims regarding the lyrical themes or interpretation of the images in the videos would be interviews with the band members or scholarly analysis which would provide an argument that the meanings have been interpreted as such by others or intended to mean as such by the artist. If such sources aren't provided, then it's just fan theory. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also one reason I had merged "Lyrical themes" and "Music and lyrics" into a single section called "composition" was that it had looked like there were two sections about the album's lyrics (three if counting the section about the Cop Killer controversy), aside from the lack of reliable sources for the analysis of the album's lyrics and "There Goes the Neighborhood" music video. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

so then these paragraphs are weakly sourced

"Voodoo" describes a fictional encounter between Ice-T and an old woman with a voodoo doll.[19] "The Winner Loses" describes the downfall of a crack cocaine user.[19] "There Goes the Neighborhood" is a sarcastic response to critics of Body Count, sung from the point of view of a racist white rocker who wonders "Don't they know rock's just for whites? / Don't they know the rules? / Those niggers are too hardcore / This shit ain't cool."[19] For the song's music video, the word "nigger" was replaced with the phrase "black boys".[2] The music video ends with a black musician implanting an electric guitar into the ground and setting it on fire. The final image is similar to that of a burning cross.[20]

"Evil Dick" focuses on male promiscuity. Its lyrics describe a married man who is led to seek strange women after his "evil dick" tells him "Don't sleep alone, don't sleep alone."[19] "Momma's Gotta Die Tonight" follows the account of a black teenager who murders and dismembers his racist mother after she reacts negatively when he brings a white girl home.[19] In The Ice Opinion: Who Gives a Fuck?, Ice-T wrote that the song's lyrics are metaphorical, explaining that "Whoever is still perpetuating racism has got to die, not necessarily physically, but they have to kill off that part of their brain. From now on, consider it dead. The entire attitude is dead."

or anything else? the other ones have third-party sources -FMSky (talk) 04:55, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit: the source cited specifically states "This is a guest review, which means it does not necessarily represent the point of view of the MS Staff." So it's not a reliable source for crossover thrash. It would have to be authored by a staff writer for Metal Storm rather than a user of the site. RockabillyRaccoon (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Ad"

Hello, I'm checking in about the note on the Anna Webber (musician) page. It looks like maybe I misunderstood the function of the "external links" section at bottom, so I removed that (apologies!), but I'm not sure what's reading as "promotional content," or how to differentiate that from simply needing to list a person's accomplishments to meet the criteria of notability for WP:MUSICBIO.

I created the article / am responsible for most of the copy, so I want to make sure I'm not messing anything up, & there's not much info on the Template:Advert page; any tips would be much appreciated! // Knifegames (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the external links werent the problem. Its mainly the text, which starting with "In 2014, Webber was awarded the prestigious BMI Foundation Charlie Parker Jazz Composition Prize and released SIMPLE, the highly-lauded debut of her trio with John Hollenbeck and pianist Matt Mitchell, on Skirl Records." onwards is basically entirely a list of her accolades/awards. maybe the "ad" tag wasnt the correct one and NPOV should be used instead --FMSky (talk) 05:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the quick response, & apologies that I didn't see this sooner –– but I still don't think I understand?
WP:NPOV makes it clear that "it is appropriate to note how an artist or a work has been received by prominent experts and the general public."
It is factually true that the Charlie Parker Jazz Prize is prestigious, and that Webber received the award; it's also true that SIMPLE was, well, lauded highly. (The source I used there is the New York Times saying things like "her best work yet, recorded with two of the best musicians working in New York’s compositional, high-concept avant-garde".) There's a list of accolades and awards because she's won a bundle of each; there are sources for everything, and there are no statements of aesthetic opinion –– only facts, some of which are *about* opinions.
Could you possibly give me a little more insight into how I can fix this? Apologies if I'm being dense, but because I focus on lesser-followed subgenres (like avant-garde jazz) I tend to focus on establishing notability via reception by experts in the field; I've never considered the problem of too many awards or too much recognition! // Knifegames (talk) 08:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look i just stumbled across the article by accident and thought the tag was appropriate, but i really dont care that much so i removed it again --FMSky (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Caption "blocked"

Hi, the caption "The divisions of the Mongol Empire and main Asian polities, c. 1300." cannot be corrected; it's "blocked". The period at the end is incorrect. Page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagatai_Khanate. JackkBrown (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done👍 it was embedded into a template so it wasnt as easily edited https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mongol_Empire_in_1300 --FMSky (talk) 04:04, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

Hi, are the captions on these three pages correct according to MOS:CAPRAGS? To me there seem to be errors, but I am not sure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6taland; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geats; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scandinavia. 5.91.16.150 (talk) 23:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it should be correct now -- FMSky (talk) 14:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano Ronaldo

Hello! I found the source number 336 in this article to keep the original title (in Arabic) confusing. I hope you can translate it back into English for readers to understand. Besides this source is missing some important parameters, such as date=, access-date=, author=,.... Hope you can add more! Thanks! Hongkytran (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i added date and access date but i dont speak arabic so im not sure about title and author --FMSky (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Henry Rollins

Henry Rollins has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed you reverted an edit I made to the Corrosion of Conformity article where all I did was add the missing "]]" at the end of Reed Mullin. I'm just trying to get a grasp as to why you did that. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that was a mistake by me and i already self-reverted ;) --FMSky (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought as much but I wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FMSky&oldid=1145035638"