User talk:Crescentia

Removed band

From the deathrock page,

the band you removed are 10 years running and have recieved club play globally, check setlists of scary lady sarah etc have played the GPP in Leipzing and the WGT this year.

I'd postuleate that you not having heard of them is not good enough reason to remove the entry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.156.240.17 (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for your reference. http://www.last.fm/music/Cauda+Pavonis

If they were/are a notable band they would have a Wiki article.Crescentia (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right Now you have removed them because it says Darkwave on their LJ, Given that Wikipedia is a community project I think you should understand the importance on consensus and the consensus amongst the listeners is that the music produced by this band is Deathrock - I refer you to the previous last.fm reference.

also worth noting is that Tragick Black won a dark wave award quite recently and they appear on this page.77.101.38.74 (talk) 08:01, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider as I believe that that from a global standpoint it is important that this band are included.

Normally this is the sort of thing I'm chomping at the bit to disagree with Crescentia on. The lines between genres are indistinct at best. Much of what is and isn't a specific type of music is a matter of individual opinion. But... the band chose to identify themselves with a specific genre label. That label is Darkwave. Self identification must count for something.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 19:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Comments

I removed comments on this page from the banned user Leyasu. --Wildnox (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have my very own Wikipedia troll stalker. Crescentia 04:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tab

Instead of using tabs or spaces at the start of posts use :. In wiki format : creates a space infront of posts on talk pages, while spaces put the entire reply into a little box, which doesn't display correctly with large posts. --Wildnox (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this :Hello(wiki format is disabled in this line)

Is displayed as:

Hello

--Wildnox (talk) 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Neogoth

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neogoth, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neogoth. Thank you.TheDarknessVisible 07:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stairs

You the same Crescentia that's on the Something Awful forums?

Yep. :-)

Goth subculture

Hi, please do not revert my edits, because the links that i provided are needed for a full understanding of sociological contexts of Goth subculture. It's not my pov, it's not original research, this article belongs, and is listed, to the wikiproject sociology (see its talk page).--Doktor Who 23:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, I can't question any of your edits because they involve aspects of how the gothic subculture falls into the precinct of sociology? That sounds a bit suspect to me. Well, at least you didn't add underclass again.Crescentia 01:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE DO NOT FOOL ME. Please do not mis-represent my position. Did I ever say that you can't question my edits? yes? Where are the diffs? You have deliberately reverted my edits in a see-also section. And please explain what does sound so "suspect" to you. --Doktor Who 01:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed your edits because I didn't feel they belonged. By saying that I shouldn't revert your edits you ARE saying that I shouldn't question them. You give a reason why I shouldn't revert your edits, and that reason sounded suspect to me. I think that you are taking this wayyyyyy too personally. I didn't revert your edits again so what are you bitching about? Rather than get into a revert war I backed down. You included 'underclass' as one of your edits and the goth subculture in no way falls under that heading. Underclass pertains to socio-economic means and not to somebody CHOOSING to listen to a certain form of music and dressing in a certain way. The fact that you incuded that makes me question the wisdom of the other edits that you included in the goth subculture page. I have a long history of editing the 'goth' Wiki pages so please don't act like I am a troll, or somebody who goes around editing things for no reason. I was in the subculture for 20 years so I know quite a bit about it.Crescentia 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just removed Intercultural competence from that list because it really doesn't pertain to the gothic subculture since 'goth' is not a native culture to any nation. It is a subculture based on music, not on hundreds, or thousands of years of history.It is a subculture of choice. Meaning that people choose to particpate in it, they are not born into it.Crescentia 04:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that Im a complete retard, right? Ok, thankl you.I thought that see-also may include similar topics for comparison. Doktor Who 05:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um.....what? If you are reading what I said in that manner then that is your problem because I didn't call you anything like that. Stop playing the victim.Crescentia 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Gothic rock bands

We've gotta crack down on these fuckers. --Halloween jack 04:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that people don't read the actual page before they add bands. Also, a lot of them don't have a clue as to what gothic rock is in the first place.Crescentia 14:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you know a lot about goth rock.I'm interested in why the 69 eyes are not a goth rock band...I listen to some goth bands - bella morte, the sisters of mercy, fields of the nephilim, lacrimosa and I listen to 69 eyes.And what I hear (from their newer albums) is in the same style as the other bands I mention. In the 69 eyes article was decided that leaving rock is the best choice.But still I wanna know why they are not gothic rock. Please answer me.Thanks =] Xr 1 00:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos for working to keep this list tidy. From the looks of it you also google to make sure you aren't on crack, which is extra rad. - BalthCat 05:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-)Crescentia 15:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I know your opinion about the last message I posted at talk:goth subculture? Thank you.Doktor Who 16:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that the music section belongs there. Zazaban just wants it deleted mostly because he wants gothic metal included. I don't think he understands that not everybody litens to gothic metal. I'm just going to let them all have their little edit war and stand back away from it.Crescentia 16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will remain vigilant. --Halloween jack (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic fashion....

You wrote 'british subculture -> british spelling' as a reason for changing the spelling of color. How is the gothic subculture exclusively British? I mean seriously, that's just ridiculous.Crescentia 20:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, because it originated from Britain? Look at the flagship Gothic Bands; The Cure, Siouxsie, Bauhaus, Joy Division, Sisters of Mercy... ≈ Maurauth ^(Ravenor) 10:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joy Division were post punk not gothic rock. The Cure have always been mostly a pop group, I mean hell I saw them play in a stadium 20 years ago. Batcave originated/influenced gothic rock in Britain and deathrock originated/influenced gothic rock in America at the same time.Crescentia 11:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

gPTHIC sPAM

No I don't think so. Please show me a diff. Rich Farmbrough, 21:49 14 September 2007 (GMT).

The refernce is in the article already. {{Reflist}} just displays it. If it is spam you should find and remove the reference. - Since I'm nice I've done it for you. it was next to The Gun Club. Rich Farmbrough, 21:53 14 September 2007 (GMT).

No need to b rude. Jeeze....Crescentia 05:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove citation requests

This is a warning, please refrain from doing this. Hoponpop69 11:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening to delete whole artcile if they don't conform to your exact wishes. ESPECIALLY if you don't use the article's talk pages.Thank you.Crescentia 14:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consolidated your citiation requests. They were not needed after every band and instrument. Instead I placed them at the end of sentences.Crescentia 16:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me what rule says you can only have one citation request per sentence. As far as my "threat" to delete the article, I was simply stating what Wikipedia:Citing sources states:

"Any material that is challenged and for which no source is provided may be removed by any editor." Hoponpop69 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations of "vandalism plain and simple" are wrong

"significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself, or where a non-frivolous explanation for the removal of apparently legitimate content is provided, linked to, or referenced in an edit summary."[1] Hoponpop69 11:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I consider your behaviour to be of borderline troll. You go into artcile and want needless citations, and when they are not given to your liking you delete artciles. Instead of giving explanations you throw Wiki rules at people.Crescentia 13:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hoponpop69 is a troll, plain and simple. I too have fallen victim of his misbehaviour previously and his thoughtless destruction of articles. If you need any help in regards to him, feel free to ask.. or maybe report him on the incidents board, see if the admins are amused by him. - The Daddy 16:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) I have never reported anybody before so I don't know how to go about it. He totally demolished the glam punk article without discussing anything with anybody, and now he's moving on the deathrock. I restored the glam punk page, but I need other people backing me up on the deathrock page. He always quote Wiki rules but NEVER dicusses his reverts, or reasons for deleting. I think it's a power trip for him to go around wanting things exactly his way.Crescentia 17:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah OK, well if he continues to destruct with no good reason then go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and follow the steps there in reporting him. That is the best way to alert an admin of his behaviour. - The Daddy 17:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported him. Thank you for the help. :-) If you ever need help don't hesitate to ask.Crescentia 19:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know

The Daddy is currently on arbitration for consistently abusing reverts.[2] Between his current and older username, he has been blocked 26 times.[3][4] Hoponpop69 19:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because he has been reverting edits that don't make sense.Crescentia 19:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How about giving me some examples then of him getting banned for reverting things that don't make sense? Hoponpop69 19:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is my talk page I don't have to bow down to you. It's obvious that you don't like the guy, so why should I play up to you about him.Crescentia 19:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the title of this subsection says, I was just letting you know. Hoponpop69 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI it's now 27, he's just been blocked for a year. Hoponpop69 01:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're reminding me of a ten year old who tells on people and then brags about it.Crescentia 12:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here Cum Germs

Honestly, I think that his behavior is just blatant trolling for the most part; this is just another example of the hopelessly Aspergersfied dark side of Wikipedia. I added some links, specifically a great article from Stylus magazine that backs up a lot of what's already there. I removed some of his citation tags; I'm convinced it's blatant trolling because he's putting a citation tag next to sentences saying that certain later bands were also death rock, when those bands have their own pages that have citations themselves.--Halloween jack 03:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Thanks for helping out. :-)Crescentia 04:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I actually think it would be a good idea if someone would put up a source talking about the musical structure of deathrock. (4/4 time, instrumental setup, use of keyboard and distorted guitar, etcetera.)--Halloween jack 08:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not sensitive. He's just scanning other people's userpages for anything negative said about him (in messages that were never even directed to him) so that he can use it as a bargaining chip in his crusade to waste everyone else's time with his pedantry and blatant trolling. People like this actually listen to punk rock. I know it's insane, but it happens. --Halloween jack 13:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's really sad when you think about it. I wish I had that much time to waste.Crescentia 21:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you had plat, we could just discuss things on the forums without being e-stalked.--Halloween jack 00:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about getting that actually. I will probably be doing so soon, and I will let you know when I do :-)Crescentia 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do, I'll freshen my Snapeatar. --Halloween jack 00:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Just so you know, I do completely understand your frustration in dealing with this user. I've reverted what I considered to be incredibly excessive tagging myself a few times. But, I don't consider frustration an excuse to ignore WP:CIVIL, which is a policy on every page. --Onorem♠Dil 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that he is trying to get me in trouble because he is pissed off at not being able to do so in an earlier dispute. At this point I will just totally ignore him if he promises to do the same. That includes not trying to atagonize me by posting information about another user who had helped me in disputes in my talk page.Crescentia 19:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Crescentia 18:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A suggestion...

You know, an enterprising editor like might find the time to put years-active information following the artists in the Gothic rock list... know anyone? :D Ok, yes I suppose me too. It's just a suggestion if you ever have/make time, since I see you making quite a few edits :) - BalthCat 16:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be problematic, with bands breaking up and reforming a lot. --Halloween jack 18:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be, yes, depending on how many times bands split, and how available that information is. If no one on the list split too often, it would simply be a matter of menial work (data collection), rather than problem solving space issues. It's just a proposition that might give this list more value as a loose guide to gothic rock timelines. I can already think of other issues that would need addressing, including when to consider a band active (first gig? first CD?), or inactive (official split? last CD? last gig?) but I really think if some one was energetic enough to do it, it would only need to be done once for most, and updated periodically for the rest. The list is looking really nice, which is why I think it would work so well. But yes, in the end, I can't *expect* what I'm not up for tackling myself. I can only hint :) - BalthCat 18:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "The Right Hand" from "List of Gothic rock bands"

Thank you for qualifying your reversion of my edit. Actually, now that I think about it The Right Hand is probably mis-categorized. The elements of heavy guitar effects, etc. that are considered essential to Gothic Rock are entirely absent in this band's music, to the best of my knowledge. They do seem to fit within the Gothic aesthetic, but perhaps a different subcategory. Thanks for the clarification, and no hard feelings here. -SantaBarbarian 13:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diluvien at it again!

Diluvien's back to using endless sockpuppets to throw temper tantrums at everyone. I'm sure he's the guy making insulting or unexplained edits to The Birthday Massacre, and I'd bet money that he's the guy who's been a nuisance to you lately. --Halloween jack (talk) 00:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nuisance to Cres? Never. --87.122.7.210 (talk) 01:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First line of Alien Sex Fiend page

"Getting their start at the Batcave club in London in 1982." Are you saying the Batcave wasn't gothic? Just curious.--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No......I just thought the original version of the paragraph was better. I just screwed up making my point. Crescentia (talk) 04:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numan

Make whatever decision you want about him being Gothic or not. I've heard some people call him gothic. Down in the Park is often considered a goth song (although that may be revisionist history after Marilyn Manson covered it), also he was on the Cleopatra label in the 90s, I saw him and Switchblade Symphony perform (again... this is all 90s so who can say). Remove him if you want to, I'm neutral.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw Switchblade's first show(I am from SF Bay Area) and several other times. Tina Root was totally messed up every time I saw them. I'm glad she got off of heroin. She said many times that the band wasn't gothic rock, because I think they wanted to get signed to a major.Crescentia (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify

I moved this here so to avoid clutter on the Goth Subculture Talk page.

"If you want people to be civil then you really have got to drop the act."

Hey, if you want people to be civil to you, don't launch unprovoked attacks at them and expect them to speak in an overly cordial manner. You can place blame in my manner of communication, you can call it an "act", but let's face it. This is hardly a 'chicken or the egg' scenario here.

I have nothing against you personally, particularly as (if I am correct about your background) I'm unwilling to dismiss the possibility that we know some of the same people, if not each other. But to be clear, I write (and speak) the same way all the time to everybody, and I have made many lasting friendships over the years. I find that the people who take offense are the ones already on the defensive. Remember, I didn't attack you here. You attacked me. And that's fine. You apologized. I appreciate that. Now don't wrap that up in a "but it's still your fault" ribbon. If you think I'm personally haunting you on this and the other related pages we share a mutual interest in, be aware that I check out my watchlist everyday. I see it listed every time you make an edit on any of these topics and I only take issue with your edits a small percentage of the time. Why? Because more often than not, I agree with what you have to say.

So stop taking it personally.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 11:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And on the note of civility and pomposity, while I fully agree with your recent reversion on the Goth Subculture page, take a look at the language you chose to utilize: "Who? Exactly...they are deleted."

You accuse me of writing in a condescending tone, but the next morning you indulge yourself in this manner. I mean seriously, you couldn't have found a way to be a bit less antagonistic in your reversion notes?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:59, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it may be no excuse people try to slip, and spam, bands on that page all of the time. If it feels like spam to me I get sarcastic.Crescentia (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. It is frustrating to encounter spam like that, over and over.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dub and Goth

Hi, you recently removed Dub as an influence on Goth music, I'm not going to argue with that decision as I'd rather not see it there either, you might however be interested to know that Alien Sex Fiend were quite heavily influenced by this album http://www.roots-archives.com/release/2430 admittedly its pretty trippy for a roots album and the sounds are all way out and quite spooky.

Just a note 163.156.240.17 (talk) 16:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]