User talk:72.208.178.248

In case you see this

This is not actionable by page-move. FYI, the italics style is being inherited from the {{infobox album}} templates in the article. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Victor Emmanuel III of Italy, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Alex2006 (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

4th block since March for the same thing (WP:NOTBROKEN, not responding to feedback, unsourced edits, etc)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:10, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Ohnoitsjamie, for whatever its worth, just at a quick glance of their recent contribs, most of their redirect changes seem to be to navigation templates, and those ones were correct and supported by policy (WP:NAVNOREDIRECT). For the ones to articles, some also appear to be correct (eg Special:Diff/970930878), though there are indeed some in violation of policy (like Special:Diff/973152319). But the vast majority of their recent contribs appear to be productive, although it would help if the IP used edit summaries. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, not all of the edits were bad, but continuing to violate WP:NOTBROKEN after three blocks is pretty disruptive. They are welcome to petition for an unblock; if the editor makes it clear that they understand WP:NOTBROKEN and agrees to stop making useless edits, I'll be happy to unblock them myself. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello, I'm Lettherebedarklight. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, At the Opera House, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. h 08:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Canadian-American Records, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You have been blocked multiple times already. Please, stop vandalizing, blanking, and disrupting content. You have already blocked enough times so this is your final warning. Wretchskull (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Discussion at User talk:Wretchskull

 You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Wretchskull. Apologies! Didn't notice that it was contradictory, please join the discussion. You can type on my talk page and tell me about this situation so we can settle it. Thanks. Wretchskull (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2021

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Age Ain't Nothing but a Number (song). jp×g 05:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2021

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I noticed that in this edit to Definitely Maybe, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talking Book. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 03:48, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

June 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Bug (Dinosaur Jr. album), you may be blocked from editing. Robvanvee 05:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Do you know anything about alt-pop?

Hello 72.208.178.248,

Greetings from 'sunny Salford' (British humour, see The Beautiful South for more on this matter)...

I have just seen your 'Color for infobox' comment...

Look, I know that indie pop is a very closely related of indie rock, but every site I seen treats it as a full-on subgenre of pop. Shouldn't we give it the same colors as the other pop genres? 72.208.178.248 (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

— QUOTE by 72.208.178.248

Now you might not give a damn about pop but you look like somebody who gives a damn about music/knows something about music...and your comments relates to my problem/Wikipedia's problem with the term alt-pop.

So do you know anything about alt-pop music or whether there is any decent references about alt-pop out there in books or online. I am currently involved in a discussion with Michael 'Binks' Knowles under the heading "Michael why are you dismissing alt-pop?" on his talk page. I think as because so many people are using the term online these days and because any google search about 'what is alt-pop' takes you to random info about indie rock or out-of-date stuff about indie pop in the 1980s, so I think that a line such as the following needs to be placed in one of the music genre sections (for example the teen pop, pop music, indie pop, art-pop etc)

"In the 21st Century, lots of new acts have been grouped under the 'alt pop' label with the genre being used for a range of artists in the charts seen to have a broad appeal but seen to be less manufactured and more eclectic or original. Artists include Tate McRae, Halsey Chloe Moriondo, Beren Olivia, Jack River, and Billie Eilish".

— QUOTE

Now Binks thinks the term shouldn't be mentioned because only dictionaries have decided what the term is, even though sites like AllMusic and Popmatters have used the term frequently when promoting various alt-pop artists (in addition AllMusic's description is a bit out of date and merged with that of alt-rock)...the only other thing I found with google was the following but it couldn't be accessed (and I do not know if it can be used as a source anyway)

The Modern, AltPop Perspective - Impakterhttps://impakter.com › modern-altpop-perspective Altpop should be defined as genre that experiments with popular categories of music of all eras and shows the vision and influences of the specific artist.

— QUOTE

Anyway something has to be done as if you google alt-pop or click on a link here it takes you to the wrong information or out of date information...and I don't think that's one of the core values of Wikipedia.

(By the way looking at the indie pop article which is mostly about the NME's C86, indie pop should be in the same colours as all the other alternative music articles, whilst alt-pop (if an article is ever created) should be in the same colours as all the chart pop stuff as most online articles about alt-pop these seem to relate to teenagers/young adults in the chart and not artists who would have the C86 tape in the collection or have ever seen a printed copy of the NME in the shops)

Regards, BEccles (not only a Goon but a place too!!!)81.152.238.125 (talk) 14:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply

Look, as much as I want to back you up against Binksternet, I got to be honest, I have never heard of the term "alt-pop" used to describe artists like Billie Eilish before I saw that now deleted section on the indie pop page. The fact is, unlike other "alternative [INSERT GENRE]" terms, alternative pop has never caught on in the music lexicon as a name for an actual pop subgenre. Personally, I view "alternative pop" as an uncommon synonym for music that is usually labeled as "adult alternative", so I'm basically useless in helping you. Sorry.

— 72.208.178.248 (talk) 16:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC) QUOTE

Same here...I've never heard of alt-pop until recently. I noticed the term alt-pop being used on blogs over and over again and when I googled it, it took me to the indie pop article and that bit that had been deleted. Being British I'm not too familiar with the American radio format of "adult alternative" either but I kind of get the idea that its more Radio 2 than 6 Music (i.e. more Jo Whiley than Lard or Lamacq) However, even though alt-pop could be indie pop, teen pop, pop music or whatever (and probably won't get an article on here until nostalgia kicks in) maybe bedroom pop could go in the space where alt-pop used to be on the indie pop page? At the moment if you click for the bedroom pop article it takes you to lo-fi music and bedroom pop gets about one line in the whole article. Maybe there is a bit more to say there in the indie pop section about bedroom pop than in the lo-fi section, as there seems to be loads of stuff about bedroom pop online - and then when AllMusic updates its genre listings to include these new genres both can get their own articles. Job done! BEccles81.152.238.125 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

refbomb Reply Comment Suggestion

Please stop refbombing articles with modernism templates. First get consent on the Modernism page. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

Stop

Please stop saying Wikipedia uses reliable sources on this queer baiting page when you know almost al the sources on that page are in no way “reliable” your simply using Wikipedia to voice your opinions as some sort of widely supported view. 2A02:C7E:189B:4700:CD3E:ADD5:4BDE:F0DF (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

---