User talk:Neon white/Archive3

...

You constantly flame other users, and you put a WP:NPA warning on my page without provocation, and don't sign your posts, at that? You, good sir, are in need of review. (>O_o)> Something X <(^_^<) 00:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, i do not. If you have any base to these absurd acusations then provide or i will consider it yet another personal attack. Until then i highly suggest reading Wikipedia:No personal attacks. "Comment on content, not on the contributor." --neon white talk 01:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Adam Lazzara

Hi Neon white;
An IP has reverted your redirection in this article with a summary justification. As I don't know about the theme, I'm telling you about this, so you can do the more appropriate. Regards, Caiaffa (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, i restored the redirect on the basis that there has been no improvement to the article, it still asserts no notability and lacks sources which means it is violation of WP:BLP.

Haaretz

take a look on the article.Oren.tal (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What am i looking for? --neon white talk 01:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haaretz&diff=228288911&oldid=228280776

The consensus is clearly that this source is fine so i have warned to user about edit warring. --neon white talk 13:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

On what basis do you conclude that there is "consensus"? It's largely Oren.tal who is edit warring. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been no valid reasons given for removing this. There is nothing in wikipedia policy that invalidates this source. If you disagree use the talk page and dispute resolution. --neon white talk 13:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This has been actively discussed; basically Oren.tal is intent on characterizing Haaretz as "Left wing" by hook or crook. Look in the article history and see how he constantly scours the net for any source to present that (his) opinion, ignoring the majority if WP:RS's that describe Haaretz as liberal. We dont include every last iota of information available on the net to characterize a subject. Finding one BBC article on an entirely different subject that uses the term "left wing" does not need to be included just because its the BBC. And note that a separate BBC article that is used, which actually is about the press in Israel, does NOT use that characterization. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and not that wikipedia is not the place for personal battles. The article history is irrelevant, there is a reliable source for this piece of info so removing it not policy. It doesnt matter what other sources say they do not contradict it. --neon white talk 15:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

<--c'mon now, common sense is required when using reliable sources. There are more instances of the BBC describing Haaretz as liberal for eg here and here and here and here and here and here just to name a few. In one isolated instance it cites "left wing". so I think it is you who should assume good faith, and accept the fact that this dispute is being fueled by one editor's intransigent POV pushing. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i have never seggested that anyone is acting in bad faith, merely that you are msunderstanding policy, none of those sources contradict the other, there is no reason that they all cannot be used. --neon white talk 17:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to template the regulars, as you did on User talk:Malik Shabazz. Making a personal, specific comment will probably make for a friendlier and more productive atmosphere than using a template that treats the editor as a clueless newbie. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Issuing a 3RR warning to one editor in a content dispute, and not to another (who has reverted at least as often), suggests that your judgment is impaired. As I wrote on the article's Talk page, the source identified by Oren.tal has as much to do with Haaretz as it does with George W. Bush — in other words, it says nothing about Haaretz. As Oren.tal continues to demonstrate, months of trawling the internet for websites that use "Haaretz" and "left wing" produces nothing but garbage. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please I need permission

Dear Neon White; I like your words "I live behind a computer and don't advertise myself" and I want to use a them or derive words from. --Puttyschool (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i'm not claiming any ownership of those words. Do whatever you like. --neon white talk 23:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Paramore

What is this then "Paramore are proving they're part of the competition to other alternative bands out there at the moment." --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Please point out were that says their genre is alternative rock. --neon white talk 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Paramore are proving they're part of the competition to other alternative bands out there at the moment." --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

At no point does that say they are alternative rock. --neon white talk 20:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

They call them alternative in that paragraf, alternative is short for alternative rock. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative is an abjective that has multiple meanings. --neon white talk 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What other kind of alternative do you feel is implied? The abnd describes themselves on purevolume.com as Rock/Emo/Alternative, Amazon.com lists them under Alternative Rock, ArtistDirect.com considers them Alternative Rock, Ticketnetwork.com sells tickets to their shows as an Alternative Rock group, etc. I believe they are mostly-considered pop-punk, but they are certainly also considered (by themselves and industry and fans) as alt-rock. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add that according to the Wikipedia article for Alternative Rock "alternative rock (also called alternative music, alt-rock or simply alternative; known primarily in the UK as indie) is a genre of rock music that emerged in the 1980s and became widely popular in the 1990s." Hope this helps clarify. Wikiwikikid (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see what that has to do with it. Fans are not a reliable source. --neon white talk 19:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha! Is the word "fans" the only thing you read in my entire comment? First off, they are in fact, reliable. Perhaps not verifiable or encyclopedic. That aside, the fact that the band considers themselves alternative rock and that the music industry considers them alternative rock means that the concept of them being considered alt-rock is reliable AND verifiable. Wikiwikikid (talk) 20:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The bands is as irrelevant as yours and there are no sources been provided. It has been pointed out that all info needs reliable sources. We dont base articles on your personal opinion. End of discussion. --neon white talk 23:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you INTENTIONALLY only reading one word per comment that I make. WHO would determine a band's genre OTHER than themselves?! Typically, yes, sources for information should be external. HOWEVER, when editing that a band is a particular genre, their OWN interpretation of their music IS relevant. In fact, THIS is exactly what should be the determining factor into what genre they are considered. Please keep reading past the first few sentences. However, like I stated the past three times I commented... fans consider them alt-rock, they consider themselves alt-rock, and the music industry considers them alt-rock. Please don't confuse my exasperation and frustration as anger. I feel as though you are purposefully ignoring the content of my comments. Perhaps, and hopefully, I am incorrect with regard to you ignoring me. Wikipedia is a collaboration, not a dictatorship. Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. YOU stated this "Wikipedia is based an reliable sources, if they say they are, then they are. --Neon white (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)" on the Paramore talk page. In context you were stating if the band says they are EMo they are. You went on to argue the opposite. Anyway, the industry also considers them alt-rock (which i DID provide you with sources of above)... Wikiwikikid (talk) 00:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there

I'm most likely not going to be around tomorrow. Will you keep an eye on User:Tq6993? I believe you are familiar with this user so I'll not elaborate a great deal :). If he deletes sourced content again will you give him a level 4 warning, then report if he still continues. I try to assume good faith, but sometimes it is hard. I think the policies are pretty clear cut, don't you? Some editors just don't get it though, and usually in these situations they never do. I don't think this user is here to build an encyclopedia. I could be, in fact hope I'm wrong though. Anyways, keep an eye out for him/her if you can. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 03:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC).

Ok, thanks Landon1980 (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a note... I believe Special:Contributions/ (talk) might be his IP address as someone using that IP made a comment (diff) on Talk:Michael Winslow and then Tq6993 (talk · contribs) replaced the IP's signature of the comment with his (diff). In addition to that, a comment was posted on your talk page (Neon white) by that IP (diff), but was removed by the same IP (diff) and later re-posted by Tq6993 (diff). --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 10:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC

My Talk Page

Er, was that an accident? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiwikikid (talk • contribs) 23:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

yes ignore it. --neon white talk 00:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Wikiwikikid (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)