Jump to content

User talk:Xsxex

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xsxex (talk | contribs) at 09:32, 19 December 2008 (→A Question for XSXEX). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk with user: xsxex.

Comments concerning pop punk

  • Pop punk to me is Poppy sounding punk in the vein of the Ramones, The Undertones, The Queers, etc. NOT in any shape or form has that word ever meant "popular" punk as it does to some others. My definition, however, seems to be impossible to "verify" per wiki standards as a lot of it is in underground print media....none of which will ever be an acceptable "source." It's a messageboard debate that will never end, let alone be solved on wikipedia. But keep up the great work. :) Messwemade 23:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going for a middle of the road thing, unless either way can be verified, in the end im guessing the whole genre will either collapse, or get torn apart. yeah, thanks for the encouragement. Im not too 'worried', im just doing what im doing. Any comments, suggestions, references, recommendations, would be great. To respond to your comment, i'll ask you this, do you agree with the first line of the article pop punk as it stands? "Pop punk is a fusion genre combining the catchy attributes of some of the original punk rock groups with trends in contemporary pop music." If you do, then acknowledge that pop punk is both The Ramones and contemporary bands that mix punk and pop. Its both. Xsxex 00:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you ask, i will be frank. I whole heartedly disagree with that absurd first line. Not one of the pop punk bands I can tolerate fuse anything resembling trends in contemporary pop music. 70s/80's Power Pop, possibly, but contemporary pop music? Not the bands that fit my definition of Pop punk. Not at all. Messwemade 00:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • the first "true" pop punk bands such as The Descendents, The Vandals, and NOFX, were merging the current trend of hardcore with the original punk rockers like The Ramones. They also were referencing everyday life, in a way that pop art does. A 1982 article on The Descendents website calls their song "Wienerschnitzel" a punk-pop art classic. [1] In the moment that these bands were writing their music, they were combining pop music/culture with hardcore and the original punk rock artists. From what I can boil down, a pop punk band must combine original punk rock with pop music/culture at the very least, this is not to say that they may not be putting other things in the mix such as ska, hardcore, emo, "indie," metal, whatever. If a band is referencing original punk rock bands while responding to pop music/culture, than the band should be able to be described, at least in part, as a pop punk band. Of course, that's not to say they should be defined as that. For instance The Donnas at one point, had many marks of a pop punk band, yet now they have moved into the larger genre of "rock." Green Day, The Offspring, blink-182, Fall Out Boy, and many of the most recognizable "pop punk" bands have similar roots. On one hand, you have bands that definitely started as straight-up "pop punk" and have since transcended that style, and on the other hand you have bands that will always stay "pop punk" like The Queers, Screeching Weasel, The Riverdales, The Lillingtons, Beatnik Termites, etc... This article shouldn't be passing judgement on either side of the issue, but rather merely writing about the genre as a whole from a distance. Thoughts? Xsxex 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haha. Very nice. Ok....your Descendents argument is a very good one and it helps me understand where you are coming from. To me the genre of pop punk IS those bands that start up as a "straight up pop punk band and stay that way." I do not think bands merging pop elements into punk roots are in the "pop punk" genre (according to my definition). I would consider these groups "Punk Pop" (Punk of the popular variety) and had even encouraged the start up of a Punk Pop article (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Punk_pop&oldid=46369787)....but since there is so much confusion about all of this, that article was merged with pop punk....sigh...Again, just my opinion and I have no idea how to prove my thoughts should be wiki fact. :) Messwemade 02:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Messwemade, i agree that pop punk is more complex than merely the statement at the top of the article, however that is just a root (and yet to be concretely cited) definition. At this moment I think its the best one yet that succinctly describes the range of artists that are mentioned in the context of pop punk. It seems you are a fan of what some people have been calling "buzzpop" or independent pop punk. As for my tastes, I tend to run the gambit, however I have only been to a handful of arena sized concerts, and mostly i stick to small shows at houses, bars, clubs, and VFW halls, etc, on the DIY level. Also to note, I'm 27 years old. Most of my friends "in the scene" are also involved on that level. But our preferences should not act in the writing of the article. Rather, we need to look at all the bands that have called themselves "pop punk," been marketed as "pop punk," and labeled by fans or detractors as "pop punk." Futhermore, since a number of these bands certainly become largely notable in popular culture, the term takes on an even broader scope. Pop punk, like punk itself, is only as personal as a person makes it. My goal here is to write an article which the majority of people can agree with within the guidelines of wikipedia. Recently, i created sections within the talk page to discuss each section separately. If you have specific points please discuss them there. As for "punk pop," in my research I have rarely come across any mention of "punk pop" which is significantly different from "pop punk." While there does seem to be a reason for a separate term "punk pop" as another style variation on Pop music, it seems to be complicated by a number of points. (1) The most prominent use of this term, in my research, originates from All Music Guide, which lists bands such as The Descendents, The Fastbacks, along with blink-182, weever, green day, rancid, the offspring, etc... (to see the site directly, click [2]). Check out the link and also explore the website. It should be noted that AMG provides biographies and artist information to the MTV website and others in the Viacom media conglomerate, and as a result to music journalists/critics throught the country/world . However, I can't find many references to back up their claims that, "punk-pop" (as they write it with the dash), is a verifiable musical style. (2) "punk pop" needs to assert its distinction from "pop punk." as of this writing i've not found much to back that up. (3) take a look at the article on pop-rap, if you replace "rap" with "punk" you have the beginnings of the "pop punk" article, however it doesn't seem that "pop-rap" is used to describe artists who are at all underground. In the case of "pop punk" there are more artists at the unsigned, independent, DIY-level, that use the term "pop punk" than there are artists who have actually achieved any level of mass popular notoriety. Furthermore, the term "pop punk" was used extensively within the punk community (possibly starting in the late 80s) but definitely quite prominent by the 1994 and after. (4) there are many more links for "pop punk" (almost 5 million)than "punk pop" (almost 2 million). Furthmore, upon investigation, many of the links for "punk pop" actually reference "pop punk," or they are merely repetitive commercial websites. (5) "www.poppunk.com" is a registered website, run by people who it seems, have some connection to punk, while "www.punkpop.com" redirects to "www.unsignedtalents.com," which seems to be attempting to capitalize on punk/indie culture, having seemingly no connection to punk at all. (6) not that this holds much wait but, "pop punk" and "punk" are listed on myspace, there is no mention of "punk pop" (7) Knock Knock Records, which runs one of the most vibrant message boards with such semi-active participants as Larry Livermore, Ben Weasel, and Dr. Frank, named this forum "Pop Punk Bored." (you can check it out at "www.poppunkbored.com"). (extra point) more than a feeling. intuition. im just saying that "pop punk" just feels like the right word for the genre. for all these reasons and more. OK. but yeah, do some research, find an article, back up your point of view. I am open to new perspectives and so should the rest of the users on here. Cool? Xsxex 03:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting! I'm 27 as well. Turning 28 this November. And while you are correct in that if I listen to pop punk it is of the independant variety only, I do not like Alkaline Trio. My favorite bands currently are Rivethead, Toys That Kill, Enemy You, The Methadones and bands of that sort. Thanks for the great conversations!! :) Keep up the great work! Messwemade 17:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only said that because your user name appear to be a quote from the alkaline trio song "fuck you aurora." Evidently, that was an erroneous association. Cool, well thanks!, and keep in touch and let me know if you have specific points, or even suggestions on a better "definition" for pop punk. Xsxex 17:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh! yeah The Methadones rule, I saw them twice last month. My best buddie Dave up in Minneapolis thinks they are tops. I've been really diggin them. Yeah they rule. However I didnt recognize the reference so i need to get into them more. Oh yeah, when you respond, just click edit off to the side of the section titled "comments concerning pop punk" at the top of my talk page. It makes it easier. The edit still prompts a 'new message' bar. What area are you from? Xsxex 17:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me, my wife and my daughter live in southern california (don't hold that against us!). NOT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE is a great album, and Mess We Made is the second (or third?) track. Actually, I recently completed an interview with the Methadones for Razorcake Magazine. I'm unsure as to whether the editor will post it as exclusive online material or put it in the print version. The upcoming print issue, however, will feature an interview I conducted with Teenage Bottlerocket when they came through town with the Epoxies this summer. :) By the way, that's cool that you are a part of the punk and the hip hop wikiprojects. Messwemade 19:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • SoCal!, whats wrong with that? Yeah as a chicago dude in the scene since like 93/93, you know i missed seeing Slugdeworth live and actually my friend Emily invited me to go to one of the last Screeching Weasel shows (around that time when they had another break-up) but i missed it. I think my first show was like the Mushuganas, Walker, and Alligator Gun or something at the Elmhurst VFW, but seeing the Methadones live is like being able to go back to the fabled McGregors. I'm totally digging Teenage Bottlerocket too its cool yeah Im also a fan of The Unlovables. Mexican Cheerleader is ex Oblivion (band), it's kinda an aquired taste but I freakin love them. Its just this inane rock thats just too strange like if wierd al was more bulky and thick, you know, more muscular, Pete, the singer is so funny. Link [3] As for the hip hop, im definitely have very little expertise in that area, but I think its really important to contrast "punk" with "hip hop." I can get into that later, but part of it is that those two forms are really the most powerful active forces in western music culture today. which one has more weight is debatable but they provide from some great comparisons and contrasts. We can learn alot. Other than the pop rap stuff everyone knows i do pay attention to local stuff. i do tend to be biased toward underground alternative hop hop. Faction of the Fox is awesome punk-hip hop fusion [4], also makes me laugh, but i can rock to it too. Kevin Coval is a really good poet, he destroys mel gibson here, [5], MC Juice is a local i think, he beat Eminem in a 1997 freestyle competition [6]. Im also partial to the hip hop label Gravel Records cause i got some friends over there [7]. Also Typical Cats are just straight up the shit [8], actually they are now based out of Escondido, Cali. Flip that on and just sit back and enjoy the ride, I grew up with one of those guys. Also from Iowa there's a group called Bad Fathers which rips some as well, less political, more party, [9]. Yeah white bread corn-eater with mohawks spitting rhymes! Speaking of Iowa (i lived there from '97-'03 going to college), i got to recommend William Elliott Whitmore, which is straight up tom waits/johnny cash, but this guy is for real. He lived the life. He grew up on a farm he worked the farm. He is conjoined with the iowa soil. he also records great music. albums on southern records, and possibly anti- soon??? And finally, I have to drop Winepress to a fellow friend in pop punk. They were the band. We're talking 2 7"s, a split, a comp, a break-up, and years later a discography CD, the song "Disappointed" sums it all up but the other songs are great too. Its like Weezer sorta lookin kids, who were average age of like 15, playing this awesome punk nerd power pop snot-rock. Listen to "revenge of the nerds." Link to Winepress here [10]. Keep in mind this is chicago suburbs '91-'95. !!!! Xsxex 20:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Unloveables rule too. I agree. :) I'll for sure check Mexican Cheerleader out! I like hip hop a lot! Only about 1% of what I listen to is considered mainstream though. The rest is whatever underground MP3s strike my fancy. I'll check all of those hip hop links later as well (myspace is blocked here at work, so I spend my day working and wikipedia-ing). That way I can log in an check out all the pics and whatever too. Thank you sir!Messwemade 22:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally, yeah i sent alot so you'll be busy. Yeah i got to check out those interviews, that would be awesome, if you want I could post them/or future interview on my website, or do some sort of collaboration of some kind. Teenage Bottlerockets! yeah!. So many bands its awesome. im diggin'. Razorcake is LA/CA, cool. Man, i haven;t really spent much time in that area, whats it like. i dont remember much, bad traffic and just regular tourist traps like Disneyland and mgm or whatevr, you know when i was like 11 with my family. not like it was that bad or anything. Xsxex 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your website? Is your email address on there? I can email you when the interviews are out. You can't post the text of those interviews on your site as they are both owned by Razorcake. But if it's an online thing you can always link to it. No problem. Also, any reviews you read in the online version or in print my pen name is Mr. Z. Southern Cali is great weather 90% of the time. That's the only upside..... Horrid traffic worse now than a decade ago when you were here, horrid tourist traps (I live within earshot distance of Disneyland's nightly fireworks show), expensive as fk housing and a lot of mexican fast food. That's about it. haha! Messwemade 22:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The Teenage Bottlerocket interview will be on the upcoming issue of Razorcake #34 next month. The Methadones interview will be online at razorcake.org sometime between now and November. So bookmark the site and check every so often. :) Hope all is well! Messwemade 23:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell did you categorize Comeback Kid as pop-punk?

Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

If you are commenting about the Pop Punk Revival Merge please write your comments here. Also if you want to get in touch or if you want to discuss issues please feel free to. Xsxex 23:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think its time we just merge the two together?--XXXtylerXXX 17:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Showoff

I apologize. I had seen the page Showoff (band) marked with a "not to be re-created" tag, so I thought there was just reposting of the same content that had been deleted. --MZMcBride 00:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of pop punk bands

ChrisB - i think you are mistaking the intention. first, The Ramones (absolutely) are the hands down Quintessential Pop Punk - this is PROVEN by the number of bands that claim them as an influence (Sex Pistols, The Clash, The Queers, Teenage Head, Screeching Weasel, U2, etc..) and a few have even covered ENTIRE albums. - second. - if we are going to consider the possiblilty of Quintessential bands, than Green Day and blink-182 fit the bill. My purpose of including Fall Out Boy was to create discussion, which you have successful obliterated by deleting the edition. Please reconsider your decision. - I would also like to point out that I have spent the last couple hours going over the bands listed in the Pop Punk List and have made some significant editions (such as Bad Religion) .. and Crimpshrine. Anyway.. point being, please read what I wrote on the discussion page and take that into consideration. I am under the impression that Wikipedia is a place for discussion and not a venue for absolutes. If you want references for The Ramones, Green Day, or blink-182... read the articles associated with them. This is not opinion. Fall Out Boy remains to be seen, but a number of magazines and news sources have pointed to them. Please respond - user:xsxex

Honestly, spend some time reading Wikipedia guidelines. WP:V and WP:OR covers the "PROVEN" and "This is not opinion" issue - no matter how true something is, no editor is allowed to draw that conclusion himself. WP:NOT covers the "create discussion" issue - Wikipedia is not a discussion forum in any way. (See #6 under the WP:NOT link.)
You could certainly argue that Wiki is not a venue for absolutes. But they're talking about articles not lists. The "List" pages are exactly that - list pages. (Actually, the lists are being deprecated in favor of Categories, given that Categories are easier to verify and manage.) They're not intended to judge anything to be better or more important than something - they're just lists. -- ChrisB 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies - I flaked out and missed part of your last response. What I meant with the "deprecation" thing - a number of users are encouraging the phasing out of lists altogether. For a number of genres (read: emo), the lists have become nearly impossible to maintain. Nobody really keeps a close eye on the lists, so bands are often included or removed that don't really qualify. (And, with a disputed genre like emo, it's even more of a pain in the ass.) So, basically, instead of using lists for those genres, we're using Categories. (Ie, Category:Emo musical groups.) It basically means that if a band is included in the Category, there's some kind of group consensus that the band actually fits that genre. It adds one extra layer of oversight in that it brings in the editors of that band's article to make the call rather than leaving it to one lone editor who can change a list on their own. -- ChrisB 06:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much I can do really--I'm not an administrator, and since I categorized all of the entries last week my involvement with the page has pretty much ended. I personally feel the closing admin on the AfD handled it well, but you can always request a deletion review and ask for the entry to be relisted on AfD if you think it was mishandled or misinterpreted (thought not if you simply disagree with the result). (FWIW, this is currently going on with the List of straight edge groups.) -- H·G (words/works) 05:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quit (band)

I'm not familiar with this band and there doesn't appear to be too much info on it. What I did find was this: [11] [12] [13]. I don't know if this helps you. --Bruce1ee 07:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GBS alum

I don't know Nick Matsakis, but I just looked him up. He seems to have a really interesting master's thesis on pattern recognition. Is he a PhD candidate now? Or has he finished? Regardless, why do you ask? -- Superdosh 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not on FoE. Also, I'm not quite a fan. I graduated with Pat Stumph (I'm '02), which explains why I have no idea who Matsakis is. You mention the hacker thing. They have this exhibit at the Museum of Science in Boston all about hacking and it has a huge section all about MIT hackers. Good stuff. -- Superdosh 04:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

signing your comments

Please remember to sign all of your posts on talk pages. Typing four tildes after your comment ( ~~~~ ) will insert a signature showing your username and a date/time stamp, which is very helpful. - CobaltBlueTony 17:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isocracy (band)

Just don't see any way that this band passes ANY of the guidelines on WP:BAND. Looks like a pretty obvious candidate for speedy delete. Nothing personal, just doesn't meet the guidelines for notability for a band. Dipics 15:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you quoted yourself, "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such." This would be a good subject for a redirect. I'll remove the speedy and put it up on WP:AFD to get a consensus one way or another. Dipics 15:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main notability criteria is the later careers of some of the band members, perhaps you should expand the article to reflect the band members' future individual accomplishments. Dipics 15:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xsxex: I agree re: smaller bands that are notable but not famous. I don't think Operation:Ivy got much coverage in Rolling Stone before Rancid's "And out come the wolves" was released but that doesn't diminish their widespread importance, popularity, and influence. Music fans looking for information on smaller bands should be able to come to Wikipedia to find that information if the band in question is truly notable (I'm not talking about some backyard garage band that self-released one 7" in 1996. That music could be important and it has its place, but not on Wikipedia). I'm from the Southwest (San Diego and southern Arizona). You? CDaniel 02:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right, we both won our respective debates! Thanks for your help. I think you ask good questons regarding the wikipedia criteria for notability and I'd like to contribute to the discussion. I don't know how often good articles get deleted, but in this case it seems the community could recognize that these two bands, while not famous, are notable and important in certain contexts. CDaniel 20:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nude modelling

If you think there is more to be said about nude modelling, add it to model (art). By all means create rediects to that article from nude modelling and nude modeling. We do not need an article nor a redirect from "Nude Modeling" because we do not place " marks around titles and we do not use a capital M. -- RHaworth 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC) (available for nude modelling in the south London area!)[reply]

As ossposed to the article on Model (art) i am seeking to create an article which reports on the action of art modeling and nude modeling. this is in contrast to the article on "art model" because it will talk about the subject (nude modeling) from the point of view of the parties invovled. i am available for nude modeling as well. (did most of my work in iowa city, iowa, for the university of iowa department of art, but now i am in chicago) (Xsxex 17:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The difference you are desribing is too subtle for my blunt senses . But in any case why cannot model (art) accomodate different viewpoints? On one thing I do insist: we do not place " marks around titles. Edit nude modeling. -- RHaworth 18:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tornavalanche

I speedied this page because it was only half a sentence long. If you have more to contribute to the article, do so, and I won't readd the speedy tag. (The speedy tag was added due to 'no context'. If the band is notable and you say so, it won't be speedied again due to 'no notability'.) Hope that clears it up. --ais523 13:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


List of bands from Illinois

I'm sorry, I used the wrong template before. I suspect that there is a movement to purge lists as a whole from Wikipedia. I'm not a member of this movement though. I speedied the article just for nocontext reasons. Have no issue with the concept though. Dipics 14:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator so don't delete pages. Someone else will likely take the actual delete action. I do understand your fustration. While a lot of good can be said about the "democratic" nature of Wikipedia, the fact that there is no real higher authority to appeal to (that I know of at least) can be frustrating at times. Good luck. Dipics 14:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting pages

It seems that pages you create keep getting deleted for nocontext reasons, because you create them a small amount at a time. One way to stop this happening (and to become less frustrated) may be to draft the pages in your own userspace; if you edit in a location like User:Xsxex/draft, other users will be much less inclined to delete preemptively. Once the page is up to a length where it would survive, you can move the page into the encyclopedia using the move tab at the top of the screen. --ais523 14:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to your questions:
  • Userspace pages can, in general, be edited by other users, but it is normally considered bad form unless the user who 'owns' them gives permission. (This is, for instance, so other editors can place a MfD request on a user subpage being used for something inappropriate, such as hosting a game show (this is an actual example; I looked for its MfD but couldn't find it).)
  • The problem with newpage patrolling is the large number of pages created about people/bands who were never notable; often, a user will just create a page about themselves in article space, normally with no indication of why they are important (and normally, they aren't important). Many editors tend to get quickly annoyed at this sort of thing, so they create rules like WP:CSD#A7 (the 'db-bio speedy'), which are effective most of the time but occasionally bite newbies (and experienced editors, for that matter). CSD A7 is deliberately worded narrowly (e.g. makes no assertion of notability) but sometimes editors get a bit trigger-happy and start throwing it around anyway. I suppose that in a perfect world there would be more prod deletions where some research has been done (for instance, I've seen prods saying 'Only 5 google hits'). You can protect yourself about A7 simply by giving an indication of importance in your first edit, and against A1/A3 ('db-empty' and 'db-nocontext') by drafting in userspace.
I can sympathise with you on this matter; it must be very frustrating for people caught up in the collateral damage caused by the large number of non-notable pages created.
Hope that helps. --ais523 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Oblivion (band)

I'm not a Wikipedia user, but hopefully these comments will reach Xsxex about the Illinois band Oblivion. On a whim, I added some info about the group, mostly discography related. I didn't want to delete anything you put in, but I know for a fact that Amish Vomit had nothing to do with Oblivion, nor were the two groups ever the same. Amish Vomit was a very short-lived side group comprised of Pete and two guys who later did stints in The Vindictives. The song "Stolen" was originally written for Amish Vomit, but was only recorded later by Oblivion, and that's where similarity basically ends. Also, though Brian did hand out a bunch of the third demo at Lollapalooza (and it makes for a great story), I debate its relavance as "self-distributed at Lollapalooza", as it did appear in other stores, shows, and probably other places. These are small details about a small topic, but I figured if someone took to the time to make an entry for the group, it should be valid information. THANKS. 167.127.24.69 17:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw the revisions for the Wikipedia page, including reunion information and more categorization. I think this format is the most concise and correct of all so far, so if it's your doing, I give you thanks.

Me (Gold Stur)

Regarding the userbox, I didn't make it. The only userbox I've ever made is a Cincinnati Bengals one which can be seen on my userpage. And really, I don't know what to say of you. Your arguments are long winded, but they seem to go in circles. I mean, it only seems as though you're proving Deathrocker's and mine's point that the differance between early pop punk and today's marketted "punk" bands is substantial enough to call them pop punk revival. Gold Stur 16:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, what "punk" bands do you listen to? Gold Stur 16:46, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why you're arguing against me. Your tastes are more pop oriented while mine are more "underground" for lack of any better words. Gold Stur 21:11, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first and foremost, get Bad Brains (album). It's pretty much the definitve hardcore album. After that, look into Black Flag (band). Normally, I'd reccomend Damaged, but I don't think it's an appropriate album for someone being introduced to Black Flag or hardcore. So instead of Damaged, pick up Everything Went Black. It's a compilation of sorts with material made with different singers. Oh yes, how can I forget, Fresh Fruit for Rotting Vegetables. It's a great introduction into hardcore and the Dead Kennedys. If you actually listen to these albums, and like them, then pick of Fear's The Record. Personally, I consider Fear scum punk, though as of late, it seems that that genre is only applied to GG Allin. If you think you can handle it, and can deal with poor studio recording quality, then pick up Hated in the Nation by GG Allin. While Hated's sound is not truly hardcore, it serves as a good alternative to it, not to be confused with the alternative genre though. You may also like the 70s synthpunk band, the Screamers. Just do a quick YouTube.com search for them and listen to 122 Hours of Fear. And last but not least, listen to the Weirdos, especially "We Got the Neutron Bomb". Then of course you have all the other bands like Circle Jerks, Minor Threat, The Zeros which you'd probably like because they sound like the Ramones, early non-racist Skrewdriver, Lunachicks, the sellouts known as The Germs, Discharge (band) whom are a great hardcore band, MDC (band), Reagan Youth, Big Boys, and early Beastie Boys back when they played punk (see Some Old Bullshit). I probably forgot some stuff, but oh well. That should keep you busy for a while. Any more questions? Gold Stur 22:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop punk and Sweet Baby

I have no idea when they got labeled pop punk. I just wrote the stuff about Denery because I know him personally. Although you might want to check out | this page because the author seems to know a lot. You might want to also check into Lookout Records which was big in the whlole East Bay early "pop punk" scene. Does that help any? --Rtrev 16:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Travalena

Do you have permission from the website to reprint this material on Wikipedia? If not, I'm afraid the article violates the copyright of the site. Joyous! | Talk 18:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Fred Travalena, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.amdest.com/stars/fredt.html. As a copyright violation, Fred Travalena appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Fred Travalena has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Fred Travalena. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Fred Travalena, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Esprit15d 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hard Rock wikiproject

Hi would you like to join my hard rock wikiproject. DavidJJJ 12:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Beta Potata

Theta Beta Potatoes is now up on a vote for deletion. Has this frat been covered by any media? Even if it's a city or college newspaper, if you can list a few legitimate articles, it could save this page from being deleted under WP:NN. --M@rēino 15:41, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mareino; yes it was covered in numerous sources. If you clicked on the links below you would see the scan of the Cedar Rapids / Iowa City - Icon Newspaper also the house was covered in the Daily Iowan[14]. Although a google search only comes up with 103 matches. this is still a noteworthy item and a good edition and expansion on the punk house article / phenomenon. User:xsxex
  • Sorry, looks like we lost the deletion debate -- this encyclopedia is pretty conservative when it comes to ANY subject that doesn't have much media coverage. If you want to bring the article back, focus on getting some more coverage like that Iowa City article, maybe talk to the North-American Interfraternity Conference or one of the other national organizations about making room for a punk house in their membership. Good luck, and please keep on contributing to other articles, too!--M@rēino 13:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question: the big concern with everyone who voted no was WP:NN. Basically, Wiki doesn't accept articles on organizations that haven't reached a certain level of fame. It's a lower standard than, say, the Encyclopedia Britannica -- I mean, every Greek frat gets a page here, and they sure don't get that in the paper encyclopedias. The problem the other editors had was that, outside of the campuses that it's on, no one has heard of TBP. That opens up the possibility of random people (or TBP people) making up stuff about TBP, and it staying on the page for a long time, b/c there aren't enough people to correct it. I know that it's a bit harsh to tell people, "go get famous," but the admins insist on that policy, so that's what we have to work with. Punk house, for now, looks like it's safe. In fact, you could probably take most of the stuff you wrote about TBP and put it on the Punk House page and it wouldn't get deleted. That's probably your best bet for right now. --M@rēino 02:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the deletion review agrees to restore, then you'll get the content back. Even if not, you can ask an admin to put it temporarily on a page where you can get at it. On the review, the main question you're going to run into is Notability. I get only about 90 Google hits in a search for "Theta Beta Potata", though quite a few more when spelled with "potato" or "potatoes". Fan-1967 16:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming

Why did you leave this message on my talk page? I am not involved in that deletion review at all. I also noticed that you seem to be spamming many other people's talk pages with the same message. Please stop sending this message to uninvolved people before I notify WP:ANI. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok sorry, but I am just trying to contact those who might support this article. We have yet to come up with a way to organize users. Thus I took it upon myself to contact the users who have contributed to the punk house article and the articles associated with it. The first comment back about the Deletion Review was to have the info from the Theta Beta Potata included on the punk house article. So it would affect the punk house article. It also might in turn affect the other articles about specific punk houses. Xsxex 17:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All you had to do was exactly what you said: "have the info from the Theta Beta Potata included on the punk house article" Here's how I might have fixed up the punk house article:
  1. De-link Theta Beta Potata so that it wouldn't show up red
  2. add a short blurb (1 or 2 sentences) after the location saying something like "started in XXXX, known for YYYY, famous people ZZZ and WWW lived here" (I don't know what was in the Theta Beta Potato, so I'm just making that up)

That way, the information from Theta Beta Potata is still in the wiki, but not as its own article. You could have made those changes yourself instead of notifying a ton of people. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posting it to WP:DRV is the correct process if you want to submit a deletion for reconsideration. Crossposting your DRV comments to the talk pages of people who may not know why they're being solicited isn't generally a good idea (though I wasn't personally offended, just kind of confused as to what was going on.) Generally, if you want to solicit opinions from outside parties it's best to write a request that's clearer about what you're doing and why, something like maybe "I've nominated Theta Beta Potata for deletion review, because I feel the issue of what it was got confused and other punk houses of similar notability have been kept. Since you've edited this article or related ones in the past, could I ask for your opinion in the DRV debate?" People would be a lot less confused that way about why you're contacting them. Bearcat 22:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rustyn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rustyn.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Beta Potata DRV

Hi,

The article succeeded at DRV, just so you know, and is now relisted at AfD. That's not really why I'm here though. In reviewing the article's history, I see that you made threats against the deleting admin on the morning of 22 August, calling him a "motherfucker" and threating to blow him up, etc. From the DRV, I also see that you have a habit of being impatient, and of expecting immediate satisfaction of your requests, even when they are impolite.

Technically, your conduct to this point already justifies a block, but I will let you go with a warning here. Please, whenever you edit, remain calm and address other editors respectfully. Be mindful of Wikipedia:Civility always. Abusive language directed at others is grounds for a block. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punk project

As I've said in the past, my main interest there is pre-'82, because after that I really wasn't that much around punk culture, other than going to hear the occasional band. - Jmabel | Talk 07:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Hi and thanks for your message. First of all, I'm doing my best at improving articles relating to punk and will continue to do so. I will also join the discussion of the punk house article and the Theta Beta Potata article. I'm very impressed with the hip hop project. It is indeed much better developed. The project page is much better, I like the collaboration idea and everything else on there. After seeing this, it is my intention to propose a similar layout to the punk music project page and let the other participants decide whether to use it or not. I plan to do so by tomorrow (Thursday). I also like the hip hop portal, maybe we can do one for punk as well. I'll keep in touch.
-- Ido50 20:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Take a look at my proposal on the project's discussion page.
-- Ido50 15:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Punk

I'll feel ya, but I don't have really any knowledge of punk so I don't think I'd be able to make a good input. --PDTantisocial 23:15, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. I'm not really that knowledgable in the field. Sorry... -Mysekurity 02:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

why are you talking to an IP?--70.124.132.176 02:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I left

I wasn't really contributing to the project, and my musical tastes had matured. I still look at it, and do some minor edits to the articles that need it, but I don't think my contributions are enough for me to be acknoledged.--XXXtylerXXX 20:58, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:727084885 l.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:727084885 l.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 01:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


HeartattaCk

Would you be able to lend a hand on either contributing reliable sources for this article or providing your opinion on the corresponding AfD? PT (s-s-s-s) 00:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrest in the Midwest

A tag has been placed on Unrest in the Midwest, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why Unrest in the Midwest is really notable, you can contest the tagging. To do this, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and leave a note on Talk:Unrest in the Midwest, explaining how Unrest in the Midwest is notable. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, article #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Elomis 07:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrest in the Midwest

I'd argue that the zine that this CD is published in isn't notable either (Google only comes up with the Wikipedia article, which I see you are the author of as well) but that's another matter. Have a look through WP:MUSIC at the guidelines, you might find details in there about how to put some notability into the article.

What is the criteria for a notable zine? I think the article on A Day In The Air is a model article for a notable zine. How many articles on zines are even on wikipedia? I think there are very few compared to how many zines are and have been published. Again, Im not going to even argue that this is an article for a musician because the first issue is whether or not A Day In The Air is a notable zine. Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes. I have been an active wikipedia user for over three years. Xsxex 07:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting CSD Tags

I suggest you do some guideline reading about deleting CSD tags of articles you are the author of. I believe that an article you wrote about an album that doesn't exist yet, from a band that is not notable, in a sporadically published zine with little readership in a localised area, is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Instead of engaging in informed debate you've told me I was wrong and removed the tag. I've re-added it, I want an Admin to have a look at this. Elomis 01:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You are cool! Coocooforcocopuffs 02:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nudes & Asthmatics

I noticed that you make a good distinction in talk page of the Nude modeling article between the nude model and the act of modeling. Please take a look at the Asthma article as I think it might benifit from a similar distinction between the asthmatic and the asthma attack. I do not think it is clear what it means by asthma!!! Alec - U.K. 21:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AYA (band)

An article that you created, AYA (band), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AYA (band) Thank you. SkierRMH 04:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in this wiki and I don't get it. Who are you? I'm Kandiss Powell.

Image:Adita10cdcompilation.jpg

Hello, Xsxex. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Adita10cdcompilation.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Xsxex/draftA01. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adita13mixcd.jpg

Hello, Xsxex. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Adita13mixcd.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Xsxex/draftA01. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adita15iahc.jpg

Hello, Xsxex. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Adita15iahc.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Xsxex/draftA01. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 02:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

This is a place for the discussion of the article Rusty Nails (filmmaker) until the issues regarding it are resolved or the article is deleted. I am inviting any and all wikipedia users to state their opinion in this case. Here's my side of the story:

  • I created the article at the request of the filmmaker. He was happy with the article. Then other users decided to vandalize the article adding faulty information. The article also attempted to reference IMDB, which itself has wrong information concerning the director. The filmmaker's request is to have the article deleted. I recommended the article for deletion and the article was deleted. Then vandals undeleted the article and added more wrong information. If anyone can assist with this issue please do. I'd like to see the article deleted permanently or written according to information supplied by the filmmaker himself. Either way it may be necessary to lock the article so it can't be altered continually as it has been. Xsxex 00:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Nails (filmmaker)

I'm confused- you didn't create this article (User:Lisa55k did). Why are you changing the entire article's contents? Despite the clear conflict of interest, why are you writing what the subject tells you to write? Why are you telling other users about the five pillars when you don't seem to understand no original research and ownership of articles? Where was this article deleted? I can't find anything in the logs.-Wafulz 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Sorry for the delayed response, I won't be able to do WP really until after 8/5. I haven't had time to look at the issue, but at first glance I'd say you should remove any unsourced statements, especially negative ones, per WP:BLP. If statements are relevant and backed up by reliable sources, they should stay. I'll look at this more closely when I get time, sorry I can't help more now. delldot talk 14:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:16965266 l.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:16965266 l.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 15:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your opinions of all music guide

Please speak out here [15]. Lots of people are listing this site as a source for various articles, but time and time again it gives invalid information. Please weigh in to make sure wikipedia does not get filled with false information.Hoponpop69 (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Rustyn.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rustyn.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jusjih 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Adita01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adita01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beltones

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article The Beltones, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 08:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of The Bollweevils (band)

An editor has nominated The Bollweevils (band), an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Bollweevils (band) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Adita10cdcompilation.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adita10cdcompilation.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Fair use rationale for Image:Adita13mixcd.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Adita13mixcd.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Question for XSXEX

Just curious. Your user page lists pop culture references to punk, and mentions "The Chipmunks, influential album'"Chipmunk Punk' which is cited (maybe as a joke? by Kurt Cobain)." Do you know when this citation occurred? (I'm wondering if the story about Cobain citing the Chipmunks is just an urban legend?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.47.239 (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup there really is a Chipmunk Punk. As for Kurt, I think it was one of his many pastiches he used in his long flowing quilt. Xsxex (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Message from WikiProject Punk music

Hello!

You may be interested to know that WikiProject Punk music has recently undergone a major revitalization. Please visit the project page to see our new look and check out some of our helpful new features, such as the Assessment Department and the Collaboration of the week. There are also a number of tasks on our Things to do page that you may be interested in helping with.

We are currently holding a roll call to help gauge how many active project members we have. Please visit the project's talk page and add your signature to the roll sheet to express your continued interest in the project. Also, if you have not already done so, please take a minute to add your name to the Participants page along with a brief summary of your punk-related interests, so that other project members will be better able to collaborate with you. If you do not add your signature to the roll sheet by November 30, 2008 your name will be moved to our list of inactive members. We may also take the liberty of removing the project userbox from your userpage if it appears there, to prevent you from automatically appearing in Category:WikiProject Punk music members. Of course you are free to rejoin the project and re-add the userbox at any time if you would like to become active in the project again.

Thank you and we hope you will continue to support WikiProject Punk music!

--IllaZilla (talk) 01:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xsxex&oldid=258950081"