User talk:Beatlemanioose

Hello, Beatlemanioose, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.We're so glad you're here! — goethean 23:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatlemanioose, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Beatlemanioose! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Tommy (album)

Please stop slapping sources and genres to this article's infobox and removing the hidden message "attributed to multiple sources in the sections #Critical reception and #Analysis and history". In case you didn't you see, "hard rock" is attributed to multiple sources cited in the article--Bayles, High Fidelity magazine, and Albert Goldman. Part of good research is sticking to the most reliable sources on the topic and what they explicitly say about the topic (WP:STICKTOSOURCE), not Googling "Tommy" w/"art rock" to find a source that supports our personal point of view. Finding a writer's statement about Live at Leeds that happens to mention Tommy in passing ([1]) and using it to cite "art rock" doesn't qualify as good research. The aforementioned sources for "hard rock" all deal with and focus on Tommy in an actual analysis of the album. Furthermore, because there are multiple sources sharing that viewpoint, it is rightly included in the infobox (WP:WEIGHT), rather than relying on a single source (T:ONES). Dan56 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources and POV

Please stop adding poorly sourced or unsourced personal opinions to established articles, especially featured articles such as George Harrison and Ringo Starr. You need high-quality sources to introduce changes into these articles, and to change genres on articles. Please also review WP:PEACOCK and avoid introducing an overly exultant tone in your writing. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:21, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now edited it to this: "The overall effect of Starr's drumming contribution to the Beatles has received high praise from notable drummers and fans, while Starr has acknowledged the technical limitations of his drumming for the band, and commented..."

I urge you to see why this "peacock-term"-free revision is better, because the opening line focuses on his influence on others, which it should, instead of some apparent technical limitation. Beatlemanioose (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Radiopathy •talk• 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014 (b)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Hey, this wasn't an edit war - the three edits were completely different!! Beatlemanioose (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited TFF Rudolstadt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roots music (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Beatles songs

The reason why I removed Hard rock and Heavy metal from all the Beatles songs minus Helter Skelter is because compared to music from the eighties to the present day, all but one Beatles song have nothing heavy to recommend them minus the heavy guitar riffs which don't pass off as hard rock etc. at least not in the modern days.

But that's okay. I think you're probably thinking about the sorts of genres the Beatles songs would have been classified as back in the sixties. While they would have been considered hard rock etc. in the sixties, they certainly wouldn't be nowadays.

But again this is okay. It doesn't really matter which perspectives or circumstances you use. I guess it isn't fair to compare Beatles songs with hard rock and heavy metal songs from the seventies to the present day. C.Syde65 (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely agree with some of your edits (for example 'While My Guitar...' is undoubtedly blues rock), you need to either provide a source or gain a consensus in the talk page. And ragarding the hard rock and heavy metal thing, many Beatles songs such as Revolution and I Want You are no doubt hard rock, even compared to today's definition. But again, these genres are reliably sourced, therefore you need to get a consensus for their removal. Beatlemanioose (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few Beatles songs (for example 'Revolution') that are certainly heavy enough to be classified as hard rock, but it's difficult whether or not to agree that they are. Several Beatles songs seem to have an ambiguous genre, due to the Beatles' unique musical styles which makes it difficult to just agree that a song is or isn't a specific genre. I know that 'Helter Skelter' is most certainly hard rock but 'Savoy Truffle', 'I Me Mine', 'Get Back', 'And Your Bird Can Sing' and 'Dig a Pony' just seem to have an upbeat or a hard edged rhythm. Another reason for finding it confusing is that in the late sixties and seventies there was little difference between blues-rock and hard rock.

Also I don't really know how to source information. C.Syde65 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of this: Wikipedia:Citing sources. Beatlemanioose (talk) 10:36, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet, stop brown-nosing the sock puppet

Binksternet You have literally just completely contradicted your reason for blocking me. You have reverted all of my edits, a huge number of which being either reliably sourced or were reverts of sock puppets and genre warriors. You are literally contradicting everything you've said previously. You are reverting my edits back to the vandalism edits done by Jimi Lewis and his sock IP account. You are giving the vandaliser what he wants on a china plate with cream and a cherry on top - you are helping vandalise Wikipedia. Check the edits before you mindlessly delete them. This is just ignorance. Beatlemanioose (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block you—I am not an administrator capable of that action. I noticed that you generally added genres without references. I'm in favor of less specificity in the infobox, telling the reader as few genres as possible. I'm also in favor of having references nail down the genre, as much as possible, ideally so that genre-warring will stop. Binksternet (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I was adding them or removing them, they were reverts of edits by sock puppet Jimi Lewis and his IP account. They had nothing to do with my personal preference. I have never even heard any of the songs he edited. Whenever he made an unsourced edit, I reverted it and asked for a source because, as you say, references nail down the genre, but these reverts were wrongly reverted. As I cannot myself, please consider reviewing my deleted reverts and seeing why I made them in the first place, and returning them. Beatlemanioose (talk) 22:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jimi Lewis removed the genre 'heavy metal' from the page I Want You (She's So Heavy), even though it had 3 different sources backing it up. I reverted his edit, but then you reverted it back to Jimi Lewis' edit. Please return 'heavy metal' to the infobox, as I cannot. Beatlemanioose (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I fully urge you to look over all of my recent edits, such as the ones I made to Rufus Wainwright's albums, The Beatles' Yellow Submarine, Ziggy Stardust, and The Script. Beatlemanioose (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet? Beatlemanioose (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

King of Hearts

King of Hearts, you blocked me for "abusing multiple accounts". Please look through my edit history and tell me how I have abused this account. Most of my edits are reverts of vandalism and unsourced edits by sock puppets. As well as this, when you blocked me, all of my edits were deleted, meaning that all the articles were reverted back to the versions that contained vandalism and unsourced genres, which was a rather stupid, careless, and ignorant move. Please revert these edits, as I cannot. Beatlemanioose (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your behavior and IP address, we have determined that you are a sockpuppet of Mrwallace05. Any appeals should be filed under your main account, Mrwallace05. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this isn't a sock account, it's a different account. No vandalism has taken place here. Beatlemanioose (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]