User talk:Jimwagoner

February 2020[edit]

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Pop Song 89, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or 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. SummerPhD^v2.0 22:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come back with sources for 'alternative rock'

Actually I need help. What is the best way to find reliable music sources?

The best way is to look for royalty free music reliable sources giving a genre. Looking for a source that says what you want it to say is not a good way.

Pop Song 89 has four reliable sources for the genres given. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is this website good? http://dictionary.sensagent.com/Pop%20Song%2089/en-en/

It has alternative for both songs.

It's a mirror of an earlier version of the Wikipedia article. It is not a reliable source. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No luck for those two, but I sourced alternative rock on Orange Crush and found a very good source that cites 'power pop' as well. Take it off if you disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwagoner (talk • contribs)

Jim, it doesn't matter if we personally agree or disagree: all that matters is that we have verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks for adding them to that article. Please also see WP:LINKROT. Let me know if you have any questions or need help--just post {{Ping|Koavf}} here and I'll see it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please see WP:LINKROT and don't insert bare URIs as sources. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charting as a source for genre[edit]

Per a sensible suggestion by Koavf, I have started a discussion at WikiProject Songs so we aren't discussing this same idea in multiple places. - SummerPhD^v2.0 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020[edit]

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Near Wild Heaven, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. [1] SummerPhD^v2.0 21:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I actually edited it twice so you need to revert it back.

.

Your first edit removed three unsourced genres, as your edit summary said.[2] Your second edit, the one I reverted, added an unsourced genre.[3] - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the first one which is common knowledge.

The genre of a minor REM single is common knowledge? No, it's not. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:52, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So not all REM songs are alt rock in a way?

Why would the people performing a song inevitably determine its genre? All Sting songs were rock, "in a way", until he started recording jazz and classical. All Billy Joel songs were folk rock until he went mainstream. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so then ig every single music genre needs a source and absolutely no music genre is common knowledge

I did not say "every single music genre needs a source". You cannot, however, pick from a list of genres listed in an article, select the ones you like and delete the rest.

Prior to your edits, there were four genres listed and the list had been stable for quite some time.[4] You removed all of the unsourced genres -- challenging them as unsourced. That's fine. You then decided the reason for your challenge did not apply to "Alternative rock". That's not fine. - SummerPhD^v2.0 22:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Jshpinar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jimwagoner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello, I am not a sockpuppet. I simply came to Wikipedia to make productive changes, and @Koavf: will agree that I've made some contributions to REM pages. I've noticed that my IP is connected to what seems to be a paid fraud. I wonder if it may be one of my little brothers that have been vandalizing Wikipedia. I personally, though, am not a sock and would like my account restored so I could make more productive changes to Wikipedia

Decline reason:

Either you aren't telling the truth, in which case you shouldn't be unblocked, or you are being honest, in which case you shouldn't be unblocked, as we don't know who is sitting at the computer making edits. So, in short, you shouldn't be unblocked, and I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See WP:BROTHER. It's was pretty obvious, and later confirmed via WP:CHECKUSER, that this yet another of many, many accounts created for the sole purpose of genre warring. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, first of all, there are actually other people in my household who are interested in music. I'm sorry this has been going on, but it wasn't personally me socking. This account was made not to genre war but to add successful contributions to Wikipedia.

Wow, so you have over a hundred people in your household who are only interested in fiddling with song genres of a handful of bands? That sounds like an interesting household. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say that. One of my little brothers might have been using bots to make all these sock accounts.

Ok, so if I am telling the truth, should I make an account and use it on an IP that's safe from everyone else and then everyone can see it's only me using it?

We're going to keep blocking you every time you create new accounts to avoid this block. It's pretty easy to do from our end. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So my family basically ruined it for me? There's no way I can use Wikipedia for now?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimwagoner (talk • contribs)

We don't know who is sitting at the computer making edits, only that inappropriate edits have come from this IP address under many accounts. See WP:MEAT. So, you are essentially correct. If you are telling the truth, you will have to make use of the standard offer and wait six months without editing or socking(be it by you or others) before requesting unblock. If you have not been honest thus far, you will need to change course and do so(which will still likely require you to use the standard offer). 331dot (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Wikipedia; blocks only prevent editing Wikipedia. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's been 6 mos. Can I please be unbanned now?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jimwagoner (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, can I please be unblocked now? I've waited 6 mos for standard offer.

Decline reason:

THat would be User:Jshpinar, but it'll fail because you edited 4 months ago from another account per that SPI case. only (talk) 20:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You'll need to do that from your original account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:41, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What original account?

So should I come back in 2 mos? ping:only

As you've been repeatedly told, any further requests will need to come from your original account. Any further sockpuppet edits will reset the six month counter. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I have to wait 2 mos for now am I correct? And in 2 mos ask from Jshpinar?

Yes. See WP:STANDARDOFFER for details. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:13, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, am I elegibile for standard offer as of today?

No. 23:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]