User talk:Janglyguitars

January 2023

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Me and the Farmer, 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. Doctorhawkes (talk) 07:25, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to Five Get Over Excited, 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. Thank you. Doctorhawkes (talk) 08:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Logged-out editing

Please take a look at the instruction page WP:LOGGEDOUT. You have been editing the same articles logged in and also logged out as the ranges Special:Contributions/143.44.0.0/17 and Special:Contributions/2603:6000:8000:EADF:0:0:0:0/64, all from the same area of Wisconsin. If you revert another user with two different identities you will have violated WP:MULTIPLE, and may be blocked. You might want to stay logged in to prevent confusion. Binksternet (talk) 05:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the infobox

...is to summarize the article. See WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE.

Please stop adding genres to the infobox if nothing about that genre is mentioned in the article.

The first thing to do with newly discovered facts about a topic is to add a prose description of that fact to the article body. After that's done, the fact may warrant a summary in the lead section, per WP:LEAD. Also, the fact may warrant a mention in the infobox, if appropriate. But the cited prose addition to the article body is required first. Please add genres to the article body before you do anything to the infobox. Binksternet (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Synth-pop shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Synth-pop

See WP:ONUS. Disputed text stays out until consensus forms for inclusion. Time for the talk page. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You’re going to tell that to the other guy too, right? The one who is being deliberately obstructive and has been blocked in the past? Guy is refusing to engage on the talk page and keeps edit warring cause he isn’t getting his way (“my way” would be for it just to say pop music, so I’m trying to be reasonable by including both perspectives, in accordance with the sources). Janglyguitars (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been blocked a bunch of times... being blocked doesn't make someone a bad person. Sometimes "deliberately obstructive" is actually just defending the wiki.

It's your responsibility to build a consensus for inclusion, as I've said before Binksternet (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Janglyguitars. Again you made changes without discussion on the talk page, and in addition you deleted sources without discussion, which is against the rules in Wikipedia, after you have already been warned several times. UserFlash (talk) 08:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I await your reply on the talk page. I trust we will reach a reasonable consensus. Janglyguitars (talk) 03:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was wrong about you @UserFlash. You can’t force someone to be reasonable if they’re determined not to be. Janglyguitars (talk) 15:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.UserFlash (talk) 18:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an Administrator, so may I ask what you're doing starting a discussion over there? The rules apply to you as well, and no amount of sucking up to the mods will change that. Do not revert my edits, especially those which cite sources. Janglyguitars (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned several times. UserFlash (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Et toi, mon cher. Janglyguitars (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Unlike you, when I had warnings, I avoided doing what was unacceptable again and I respected it. In addition, any user can start a discussion about another user. UserFlash (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Wikipedia is not a place for arguments. UserFlash (talk) 20:00, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not for you to decide whether my attitude is unacceptable. I think your refusal to engage in any consensus-building or compromise whatsoever, never mind rational thought or discussion, is completely unacceptable and probably worthy of a ban on account of the obstruction you are causing, but that's not my decision to make. Janglyguitars (talk) 20:06, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

As a result of the evidence presented at WP:ANI, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing Synth-pop. You can make comments at Talk: Synth-pop only to the extent that you contribute in a genuinely collaborative manner. If you take your disruption to other articles, you will be blocked site-wide. I recommend that you read Wikipedia:Genre warrior. It is not policy but it may give you some insight into the thinking of experienced editors and administrators. Endless arguing about popular music genres and subgenres is one of the least productive activities that a Wikipedia editor can engage in. I encourage you to rethink your approach. Cullen328 (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Guide to appealing blocks for information about how to request that this sanction be lifted. Cullen328 (talk) 07:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Hello! It seems I was blocked from editing the page for "synth-pop" following a dispute with another user by the name of UserFlash. My intention was to form a consensus, based on compromise, which did not unduly credit one source over all the others in the article's first sentence. The reason for my ban, as far as I can tell, seems to be based on the notion that because the article's current status is what it is, all the burden of proof rests on the person trying to make a change. Therefore, the person proposing a change must be the sole culpable party in edit wars, while the person defending the status quo is guilt-free. I do not subscribe to this view, for what if the status quo is incorrect? To assume the worst in editors trying to improve a page is, or ought not to be, in accordance with Wikipedia's values. Furthermore, my edits were backed up by demonstrative arguments on the talk page, which were never answered. I highly encourage you to read the full talk page discussion and view the edit history of the main page for proper context in order to consider the reasonableness of my actions. I do not believe that any of my actions were unwarranted or wrong, except for losing my temper at times and speaking rudely, for which I apologise. Thanks for taking the time! Janglyguitars (talk) 10:10 pm, 21 May 2023, last Sunday (2 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2023 (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.

Hey! Just someone poking their head in from ANI to hopefully clarify.

the burden of proof rests on the person trying to make a change is actually correct, per WP:BRD. It is up to the person making the change to provide supporting evidence in the form of citations. Instead, you came out swinging at Talk:Synth-pop with very strong language, but no citations to back up your point.

And, I'll be blunt, music genre arguments on Wikipedia are as old as Wikipedia itself. We've seen them over, and over again, and most of the regulars are tired of people starting these fights over such nebulous terminology. Other users on that page weren't exactly shining examples of debate, but when one party comes in demanding edits, without sources, and gets into attacking other editors, that's the person likely to face sanctions.

I'd suggest taking a short break, looking for more sources to support your stance, and bringing them to the talk page with a suggestion for edits to the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Second Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I'd like to try to refute the claim that I was edit warring. Per site policy, the burden of proof relies on the user editing a page without discussion. As I'll demonstrate with the use of some diffs, though, this was not the case with my edits. On 6 October 2016, an edit was made to the "Synth-pop" page without any discussion on the talk page. On 18 November 2016, another edit was made, again without discussion. This first edit changed "popular music" in the first sentence of the article to "pop music", while the second edit changed "genre of pop music" to "subgenre of new wave music". Once again, neither of these edits were made according to consensus reached by discussion on the talk page, and not even an explanation was offered in the edit summaries. In my case, I was attempting to restore the page to its former state before these unexplained, undiscussed edits. Per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content", so the claim about "subgenre of new wave" and supporting AllMusic citation should therefore not be included in the article, and my attempts to remove them did not amount to edit warring. Janglyguitars (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Do you actually know what "edit warring" means? You were repeatedly reverting material in an article to the version you prefer: that is what edit warring is, and you can't "refute" what you call the "claim" that you were doing so by explaining that you think you were right to do so. Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. JBW (talk) 21:42, 29 May 2023 (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.

Janglyguitars (talk) 21:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

16 Lovers Lane

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to 16 Lovers Lane, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Haoreima (talk) 20:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing references.

You have removed references to the article The Jam that I have provided. I have reinstated them back into the infobox. Please refrain from removing referenced material in articles with no reason given. ExRat (talk) 22:11, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Even though me and you disagree with a lot of things I’m glad you were there to help out on the joy division thing thanks again and sorry for the genre messing around on new order but again thanks Thecure8985 (talk) 08:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

-- ferret (talk) 18:15, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]