User talk:ResolutionsPerMinute

Archives

As Nowmusicfan2816 Archive 1 Archive 2

You left a very strongly worded message on my talk page accusing me of "disruptive editing" in relation to This Fire (Franz Ferdinand song). Please explain to me how me adding a paragraph break within the article can be classed as "disruptive editing". I have been editing Wikipedia since 2007 and will not to be subjected to baseless accusations. Dn9ahx (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dn9ahx: Because you've been breaking apart this paragraph since last year (hence "disruptive"), and it looks totally unattractive beside the fact. Do you see the Release and reception section broken into piddly paragraphs? Also, it doesn't matter how long you've been editing. I know a 2006 editor who still adds uncited information, so I think I'm fully within my rights to leave you a strongly worded message. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 15:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you remove genres from infoboxes, you never put any genres that you think fit. Why? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB: Cuz I don't have the sources. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:09, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever tried to find any sources? 2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@2600:6C5A:417F:794E:C:B3E6:2106:FDBB: That's your problem, not mine. I'm not the one adding unsourced information. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 21:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that your edit of my edit for the page Torn, the Ednaswap song, almost 2 months after it was done... coincidentally right after we have had a disagreement on another article, is malicious and inappropriate. I think because we've had a disagreement over the formatting of Fade into You, you looked at my contribution history and looked for anything you felt you could change. We are both allowed to make edits to language as we see fit, but I can't help but feel that you did yours out of spite, in bad faith.

I think some form of separation between the sections of the sentence is correct. So, I changed the punctuation and wording to something that I feel is more correct, a semicolon to connect the clauses. I researched dependent clauses but I don't think it's applicable there. If you still disagree with the new formatting, please create a talk section and elaborate. If you revert my change without elaborating, I will create a talk page section for this issue and warn you again.

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much!

I noticed that a message you recently left to a newcomer may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. Thank you. Saw141 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saw141: I reverted your edit because I checked your contribs, which is what I do when I see a potentially disruptive editor, and the edit you made on Torn was most definitely a grammatical mistake. It had nothing to do with "maliciousness". It seems to me like you are casting aspersions because you aren't getting your way, and leaving me three messages is overkill. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 00:44, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's one message with three warnings. I felt they were applicable because of how I've interpreted your behavior. I am calling you out for what I saw as inappropriate behavior. Regarding the Torn edit... The flow of the sentence felt grammatically incorrect without separating the a "Thornalley", from the next clause. It may have been grammatically incorrect because of the specific words used after "Thornalley". I believe that the current version is more correct. Saw141 (talk) 01:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saw141: Yes, leaving me a message starting with "Welcome to Wikipedia" really stuck it to me. Anyway, this I see nothing wrong with your new edit on Torn since is it grammatically sound, so I won't do anything about it. As for Fade into You, however, check your talk page in a few minutes. Let's continue the discussion there. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All my actions on I Just Shot John Lennon have been valid Admin actions. I declined a speedy deletion criterion that used the rationale of "Googling this song shows no notable chart perfomances or coverage from independent sources. No use for it, pls delete." That is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Woozy reverted me and I removed it a second time, explaining what the proper steps were. Woozy took my advice and added a PROD. An IP came by and per PROD policy removed the PROD. Per policy no reason is required to remove a PROD. Woozy against the policy readded the PROD. I removed it per policy and explained in the edit summary why I did and pointed Woozy to the proper next step, AFD. I also explained it in further detail on their talk page. I don't care what happens with the article but don't accuse me of just reverting. ~ GB fan 12:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: I wasn't accusing you of anything. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure does seem that way when you say "Courtesy ping to Woozybydefault and GB fan, who should stop reverting each other and make detailed statements on this AfD report." Makes it seem that all I was doing was reverting. ~ GB fan 12:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Which you were. Facts. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I wasn't. I was doing my admin duties and explaining all the way along why I was doing it. Not editing or making any editorial decisions on the article. I removed invalid speedy deletion requests and an invalid PROD request. But from the sounds of it we will not see eye to eye on this. ~ GB fan 12:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Reverting is reverting, no matter what your reason. It was a blooming edit war, and I decided to be benevolent and halt it before one of you got the pink slip. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are so funny, I will concede a revert is a revert. Based on that I have 3 reverts and Woozy 2 over the course of 6 days and all of mine are removing edits that are against policy. That is not a blooming edit war and neither one of us would have gotten a pink slip. ~ GB fan 12:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GB fan: Don't be so sure of yourself. Nobody has the same pair of eyeballs as you do. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 13:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I was just reaching out to ask why you restored this revision? [1] I removed the pop rock influence as it's unsourced — which I left in the edit summary [2] . I'm not sure if you didn’t see that? From the looks of it an IP had added the genre influence back in July of 2020 [3] — but didn’t cite any sources to back the claim. Pillowdelight (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: I did see your edit, but as you can see, what you did between then and me ultimately didn't matter. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 10:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you saw it why would you add it back knowing that it's unsourced? You’ve been editing for over a decade with over 87,000 edits you're very much aware of how to add a citation. I also don't know what removing the year has anything to do with what I’m getting across to? Pillowdelight (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pillowdelight: Okay, now I see where I went wrong, and I'm sorry, but don't tell me how to do my job. People make mistakes, so you don't have to call me out on something you could have easily explained with an edit summary. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 12:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not telling you how to do your job. I reached out because I didn’t want to start an edit war. I was just confused is all. No worries, just a misunderstanding is all. Pillowdelight (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts to Texas related articles are non-constructive in my opinion. Lead sections are supposed to be short summaries of the article, not major length. Unsourced? It's obvious that said tracks are included on the compilation based on the track listings. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Then make more detailed sections so the lead will look good. Making the lead one or two sentences for articles of this size is just asking for a cleanup tag. Also, the information you added was unsourced. Can't argue with that. Your fault. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the albums such as The Greatest Hits was released in 2000, when the internet was still very much in its infancy, it is hard to get reliable sources for something as simple as, and as common knowledge as, a track list. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Welcome to the real world. That's why there's cite av media notes. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't know that one so thank you for that information. I will certainly make use of that in the future. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're having trouble of grasping the concept of citing sources, aren't you?

There wasn't much need for a comment as abrupt as that, was there? I would appreciate it if you didn't make me look to be an absolute idiot, thank you very much. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: Don't put words in my mouth. In no way did I call you an idiot. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, but your question at the end certainly insinuates that. Read back at what I said "I would appreciate it if you didn't make me look to be an absolute idiot". I didn't say you called me one, but rather, by asking such a question, you are insinuating that I am one due to my lack of source provided. Goodreg3 (talk) 20:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Goodreg3: I wasn't insinuating anything either, but whatever. Let's just move on. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 20:43, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Can You Dig It (song), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Can You Dig It (song) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]