User talk:Shallowmead077

Welcome!

Hello, Shallowmead077, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

J04n(talk page) 18:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AIC genre warrior[edit]

This ip has popped up out of nowhere and gone on a genre changing rampage on all the Alice in Chains articles. I call the big one bitey (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: not at all.[edit]

We needed a way out for that part of the AIC infobox, and it seems to me you have found the right one. Happy editing. --Mauro Lanari (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Genre tweaking[edit]

Hi, Shallowmead077. If you haven't already, please read the essays WP:GENRE WARRIOR and Genre warring and genre warriors. A quick glance at your editing history shows that you are particularly concerned with the genres of music groups. Tweaking genres is to a large extent lateral change; the definitions of genres are fuzzy as is the classification of the bands themselves. Many articles on musical groups would much more benefit from attention to adding important information and references to the notable facts in the articles rather than tweaking subjective things like the genre. As explained in the essays, genre tweaking can be intrusive and disruptive and benefits the encyclopedia less than what some editors may think. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I provide reliable references alongwith anything I add and I revert dubious and unsourced material added by anonymous IPs. I don't tweak genres unless it's absoulte necessary. If you've seen any disruptive changes done by me you can point it out and I'll refrain from similar issues further.--Shallowmead077 (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For example, in your very last edit to Type O Negative, you ignored the notes to discuss any genre changes on the talk page and you just went ahead and added the genre you wanted. On top of that, the "reliable sources" you used (like an about.com article) are at very best questionable. About.com is also usually considered unreliable by most experienced editors. And there was no "absoulte [sic] necessary" to the change, so you weren't even operating by the standards you say you operate under. Need I go on? But regardless of that edit or any other edits you've made, it seems to me you are missing the reason why genre tweaking as a main editor focus is not very productive and on the whole is actually counterproductive and disruptive: it soaks up editor time on stuff that is of ambiguous quality improvement. The links I posted (and it's unclear to me if you've read them) try to help editors understand this. There are many ways that the Type O Negative article could be improved. Some of which are given from the last GA review on the talk page. In addition, whole potential sections, like their touring history, are missing. Since you have an interest in music subjects, why not try to focus on stuff like that? Go for the vertical change, not the lateral. Jason Quinn (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to Type O Negative then you'll notice that doom metal is the predominant element of their sound e.g. the heavily downtuned plodding Sabbathy riffs. They basically combine it with synth rock sections and Peter's vocals which used to give that Bauhaus and The Sisters of Mercy edge which eventually got them labelled as gothic metal. Anyway, I'll try to find better sources to include that and might even expand a musical style section. I'll also work on including their touring history. Thanks! By the way allmusic tag clouds are as much as or even less reliable than About.com. Shallowmead077 (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gruntruck may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{{musical artist
mn0000542755/biography|title=Gruntruck biography|publisher=''[[Allmusic]]''|accessdate=2013-11-29]]</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sixty Watt Shaman, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hardcore, Heavy rock and Punk (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) 09:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alice in Chains (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Downtuning (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) 09:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected of sockpuppetry[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Metalvayne. Thank you.—indopug (talk) 10:51, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That someone is apparently you. Why are you being a drama queen? Be a man! Shallowmead077 (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Metalvayne (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are 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 is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. —Darkwind (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]