User talk:Jimv1983

Welcome!

Hello, Jimv1983, 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:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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!

BOVINEBOY2008 19:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of this now. Thanks for the notification. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Asylum (Disturbed album). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. IllaZilla (talk) 05:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Asylum Special Edition

iTunes also has a song "ishfwilf" as a song which is infact "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and it's wrong. I have the Deluxe Edition and the cover by Judas Priest is the final song. I will take some snap shots soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevon100 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You must have a bootleg copy. I have the store bought CD. The legal CD version does NOT have the Judas Priest song. Track 13 on the CD version(not shown on the case) is "ISHFWILF" the cover of the U2 song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"

Please see this screenshots. The first 3 show that I do indeed have the real CD. The fourth picture shows how the 13th track shows up on my car CD player. The hidden 13th track is absolutely a cover of the U2 song "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For". Listed as "ISHFWILF"

http://img836.imageshack.us/i/img20100903235213.jpg/

http://img811.imageshack.us/i/img20100903235229.jpg/

http://img9.imageshack.us/i/img20100903235251.jpg/

http://img204.imageshack.us/i/img20100903235649.jpg/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.74.77 (talk) 07:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jimv1983 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. BOVINEBOY2008 18:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Genre edit warring

None of your edits regarding music genres provide reliable, verifiable references. You are only editing based on your opinion, which should not be in encyclopedic articles. Whatever you think of Linking Park, nu metal, or Disturbed is irrelevant. Can you provide any references for anything you are editing? If not, then do no make those changes. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this: see WP:V, WP:RS. If you continue to ignore these warnings, I will contact an administrator and recommend you be blocked. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to the page Believe (Disturbed album). Such edits constitute vandalism and are reverted. Please do not continue to make unconstructive edits to pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Mutinus (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

My edit was not unconstructive. I was simply making it more accurate as nu metal is the primary genre of this and all of Disturbed's albums. --Jimv1983 (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you not get? CITE YOUR EDITS. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Believe (Disturbed album). If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Mutinus (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkin_Park

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 21:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits, such as this edit you made to Asylum (Disturbed album). If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 23:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you suggest I fix this issue? I'm trying to make the page as accurate as possible and I get accused of vandalism. Disturbed is a nu metal band above anything else. This wikipage should reflect that information. Also, the official release date was August 31st 2010. Any other date is a deviation of the date established by the band as stated on the official website. --Jimv1983 (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This album was recorded and released by Reprise Records which is owned by Warner Music Group. The release date was shown on Disturbed's official website to be released on August 31st 2010(this information was removed after the album was release and I had cited it as a source.) Now it can be seen on the Warner/Reprise website. http://store.warnerbrosrecordsstore.com/prod.aspx?pfid=1995506&sid=F75A7685DF29493491223523ED970163 it is not vandalism. It is correct information. --Jimv1983 (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Believed

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to resolve this but its quite obvious that the people that are reverting my changes know nothing about the band or what genre they play. --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As the warn above states you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. It does not matter if they like your changes, search consensus no make WP:GWAR. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 03:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you are revert warring with many editors, consensus is not on your side. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The editors are strictly relying on just a few critic sites such as allmusic and metacritic. Trust me. I don't want to be in an edit war but when people that don't know anything about the subject matter they are editing and only relying on the opinions of a few web sites it makes it hard to get any good information. Anyone that listens to Linkin Park knows they are no comparison to metal and knows they are alternative or hard rock. Same with Soundgarnden they are not metal either they are grunge. Disturbed is nu metal. If people don't know enough about the bands to know that allmusic and metacritic are wrong than they shouldn't be editing these pages. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

In resume "Allmusic and Metacritic are wrong, and I am right". Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 04:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, you don't know the subject matter. If "reliable sources" said the sky was red but you knew it was blue what does that say about your "reliable sources". The "reliable sources" say Linkin Park is metal yet they are on the complete opposite side of the rock spectrum. Regardless of what "reliable sources" say if you want to be a metal band you have to play music that fits into the metal genre. Linkin Park doesn't. It's not my fault if the editors don't know anything about the subject matter. In regards to the Disturbed genre edits. Alternative metal and heavy metal, although not the best description (nu metal is), are close enough as long as the genre is used consistently. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Disturbed is one of my favorite bands, too. I've listened to all their albums and this new one I'm currently on my fifth listen. I've also listened to a variety of genres. I've listened to traditional heavy metal, nu metal, alternative metal, hard rock, symphonic metal, thrash metal, groove metal, death metal, power metal, progressive metal, you name it. I know how to tell genres apart. The Sickness is most definitely Nu Metal. Believe? Somewhat. But Ten Thousand Fists onwards I'd hardly consider Nu Metal. The band's riffs, tunings, and lyrics are now too complex to be considered Nu Metal. There's also the introduction of guitar solos into their music from TTF onwards, something Nu Metal doesn't touch with an 80-foot pole. And just listen to songs on their last two albums. You'd have to be deaf to not notice the Iron Maiden and black album Metallica influences. There's a reason Linkin Park is labeled as Nu Metal, because in Hybrid Theory and Meteora, they played down-tuned, simplistic guitar riffs while having rapping and turntables, along with a total lack of guitar solos and lyrics that are filled with excessive teenage wangst, stuff nu metal is often known for. Besides, you claim to love Disturbed, right? How much of a fan are you really if you refer to them as a genre that most metalheads despise? Most metalheads do not even consider Nu Metal to be metal. It's considered by many to be a derogatory term, to the point where even the bands themselves fight it. Not even Korn, the patron creators of the nu metal genre, fully enjoy being referred to as such (ESPECIALLY Jonathan Davis). (Death0111 (talk) 05:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

I agree with the comparison to Metallica although I can't say either way about Iron Maiden as I don't really listen to them. I also agree that Disturbed's style has changed to a certain point but not enough for a change of genre. If the majority of the population wants to remove nu metal I can agree with that although heavy metal isn't the best either. What about alternative metal or hard rock. Heavy metal gives off the vibe of something harder and faster than disturbed. The closest song to heavy metal from Disturbed is Guarded from TTF. You are totally right that guitar solos are something that nu metal doesn't do to often but although Disturbed has done some solos in their more recent stuff there have not been many. Heavy metal gives the vibe of something like Slayer although I guess I could still live with that. I also never claimed to be a "metal head". I've never heard any "true metal heads" claiming to hate nu metal. I've also never heard Jonathan Davis disliking the nu metal label. Do you have a quote? What I totally disagree with you on is Linkin Park being labelled metal. "lyrics that are filled with teenage angst" you could say the same thing about emo which Linkin Park also doesn't sound like. Linkin Park is not hard enough or fast enough to be considered metal much of there stuff, especially Minutes To Midnight, is more soft rock than metal. Linkin Park also doesn't have a metal style of vocals either. They truly are unlike any metal band. Calling Hybrid Theory a metal album is quite a stretch. With songs like Papercut, With You, Crawling and By Myself I would hardly call them metal. Songs like Place For My Head and Forgotten shows more of a rap influence than metal. The closest thing on Hybrid Theory to metal is One Stop Closer. Meteora and Minutes To Midnight is even farther away from the metal genre. Even with you claim that only The Sickness is nu metal. I would still say that it not similar in anyway to any Linkin Park songs. Linkin Park also has no similarities to Korn or other nu metal bands such as System of a Down or Slipknot or any other sub genre of metal. Linkin Park can best be defined as hard rock or alternative rock. Linkin Park would seem quite out of place at a place like Ozzfest, Family Values or Mayhem fest. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Listening to Iron Maiden would probably help. Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and Judas Priest, which influence Disturbed's current music, are all considered to be definitive traditional heavy metal and if you listen to them, they play at around the exact same speed Disturbed does. Disturbed do definitely play alternative metal and hard rock as well. All three of those genres are of the most influence on Disturbed's current sound. Also, Slayer is thrash metal, not traditional heavy metal. Sorry for assuming you were a metalhead, it's a usual term. As for the "Nu Metal not being hated by metalheads" comment...you haven't been on too many metal forums, have you? Mention it anywhere on Metal forums...anywhere at all. You will be flamed and berated to death. Trust me on this one, I've seen it WAY too many times. Many, MANY metalheads out there hate nu metal, most particularly for it's angsty lyrics, commercial nature, the riffage not being very complex, and often...Fred Durst. There used to be a quote from an interview with Jonathan Davis on Korn's Wikipedia page, but it's been edited out, but he stated specifically that he hated the term "Nu Metal." I wouldn't call Linkin Park "metal" either, but nu metal is a term used to describe the earlier style they played, similar to Limp Bizkit, another nu metal band. Bottomline, I'd say it's reasonable to list Asylum's genre section as alternative metal, heavy metal, and hard rock in the genre list. -- (Death0111 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

I'd also like to point out the "not that many guitar solos" statement. TTF didn't have that much, I agree. However, Indestructible had 8 out of 12 tracks that featured guitar solos. Asylum had 7 out of 12 (8 out of 13 if you include the U2 cover). I'd consider that more than "not many." -- (Death0111 (talk) 08:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC))

Release dates

Please stop editing against consensus. It is clear that the project has decided on including the first release date in the infobox, not the one that is put on the ".com" of the artist. If you don't stop, I will seek other measures of conflict resolution. BOVINEBOY2008 04:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Good. I want this resolved but I also want the best information possible. I listed the best source possible. Why can't you just leave it alone. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because it isn't correct. I sourced the German Warner site that says that the album was released the 27. This is official and reliable and earlier. BOVINEBOY2008 04:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Not official just earlier. Why is the earliest date the most important? Because you say so? Because the template, based on one persons opinion, says so? --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because that is what consensus is. And it is official. Do I need to define official means? In different regions, albums are released on different dates. The Album Wikiproject has decided by consensus that the earliest date is the one that should go in the infobox, and then that other dates can be explained in the article. I have sourced an reliable source (which is what Wiki requires) that it was released on August 27, which is an earliear release date than the one in the US. They are both official release dates, albeit in different countries/regions, and one happens to be before the other.

Also, you do not own articles, and your behavior implies that you are trying to own this one. I have filed a [for editor assitance], but please be aware that this kind of ownership is not preferable. BOVINEBOY2008 09:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. I found Disturbed's official German website. It says the album was released on the 27 [1]. Here's a translation if you don't read German [2]. What about that? And what about the official German label saying it was released on the 27 that I cited earlier? BOVINEBOY2008 09:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all a consensus implies that it was discussed and agreed upon. I looked at the history for Template:Infobox_album and the Release Date area was edited by Spark on November 18th, 2006. There was no discussion about the matter. Nothing was agreed upon. That user decided by himself. That's hardly a consensus. I still think the release date should be the 31st because it is the release date in the artists home country and that is more significant/official. But at least this time you actually have a first hand source of the band/label with is much more reliable than third party sites like cdnow.com, metalhammer.com and themetalforge.com that you have quoted in the past. --Jimv1983 (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources, and the home country release is no more significant or official than in other regions. We don't give preference to one country when it comes to content, please read WP:WORLDVIEW. And you brought the issue up at the talk page, but it was said no to by three different editors. That sounds like a pretty good consensus to me. BOVINEBOY2008 15:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 separate discussions on this very topic here, and both ended with no objections to the current guideline. I don't see the logic for making any change. It wasn't like the street date was broken. Another country merely was allowed to start selling it earlier than others. The release date is, after all, the day the album first became officially available. Not sure what's so hard to understand about that. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 18:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Succession box

The {{Succession box}} provides a link to the previous and following number one charting albums. All number one albums have this box, including the other two albums in the template and the previous three Disturbed albums. The box located on these three articles is however located lower on the article. That was the formerly accepted placement, but recently some editors expressed an interest to see it next to the charting tables. Removing the box from this one article is damaging to Wikipedia as it breaks a long chain of articles. Please refrain from removing this box. Thank you. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Charts should be included because they are relevant to the album. Even the dates it was at number one are relevant. The fact that Katy Perry had the #1 album before Disturbed's Asylum is totally irrelevant to the album and their for the entire article. It gives no more information about the album and just takes up space. Please provide any other album that does the same. The Disturbed albums "Believe", "Ten Thousand Fists", "Indestructible" and "Asylum" have all been #1 albums. None of them have this information. I have also never seen this on any other #1 album. It also does not appear on Template:Infobox album.--Jimv1983 (talk) 23:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the other articles as I have stated in my original comment. They're in a different location in these other articles because that was the formerly accepted placement for this box. There really is no discussion to be had here on whether or not this should be here; it's a formatting standard for all number one albums. If you truly feel this should not be here, then it should probably be removed from all number one album articles, and that is a discussion you would need to take up at WT:ALBUMS. Until an alternate consensus is gained there, this box stays. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that it is on the previous #1 Disturbed albums. Sorry I didn't see it all the way at the bottom. However it is not mentioned at all on the WP:WikiProject_Albums page. It's only mentioned on the discussion pages WT:WikiProject_Albums#Remove_succession_boxes and WT:Manual_of_Style_(record_charts)#Remove_succession_boxes. If you read both of those you will see that the Succession box has only been added by convention and no consensus was ever really reached in favor of including them. If fact quite the opposite seems to be true. From the two discussions I mentioned it seems that many people actually want them gone. What album was at #1 before and after the topic album is totally irrelevant to the page. Its just something else to make the page longer and more information that needs to be cited (or possibly mis-cited) while adding nothing relevant to the page. Teenage Dream by Katy Perry was the #1 album before Asylum and Kaleidoscope Heart by Sara Bareilles was the #1 album after Asylum. So what. What relevant content does it really add? --Jimv1983 (talk) 03:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:SarahRoemer Cohen 14331850 (1).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:SarahRoemer Cohen 14331850 (1).jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 08:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Linkin Park

If you believe the band Linkin Park "never had a nu metal sound", then I'd like you to see all of these [3][4][5][6][7][8][9] before looking like an idiot. - GunMetal Angel 20:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

First of all only 3 of those lines really went anywhere. One of the sources you listed said "Sadness permeates 'By Myself' and it is heavy metal hard." That shows that the person that wrote that review doesn't know what they are talking about. Really? "By Myself" heavy metal hard? Is that a joke? Have you heard "By Myself"? Good song but does not sound like metal. The last source you provided was a top 10 list which is terrible. The fact that the author put Korn below Linkin Park on a list of top bands of a genre that Korn invented obviously shows they havn't listened to much Nu-Metal. My point is made even more when the author includes Three Days Grace(Alternative rock/Pop Rock), Hoobastank(Alternative rock/Pop Rock) and Lostprohets but leaves off Disturbed. Korn, Disturbed, System of a Down and Slipknot are true nu metal bands. Linkin Park does not play anything even remotely similar. Linkin Park wasn't metal at any point and with their last 2 albums they have gotten even farther away from being metal. I'm not going to listen someone who doesn't know the genre over my own experience of listening to the genre for almost 2 decades. --Jimv1983 (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Genre is not defined solely by what their latest album sounds like, it's what genres they've played over the course of their career. There are numerous authoritative sources classifying Linkin Park's early albums as nu-metal or rap-metal: Rolling Stone, Spin, etc. being the chief examples that jump to mind. Claiming that they were "not metal at any point" in the face of a preponderance of sources to the contrary is absurd. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I didn't limit it to just their latest album. I was talking about all their albums. I was talking about their first album when I mentioned "By Myself" not being metal. If the so called "authoritative" sources had listened to more metal and specifically nu metal like Korn, Disturbed and System of a Down they would know there are no similarities. Have you heard to old saying "If it quacks, walks and acts like a duck than it's a duck"? While, it works both ways. If it doesn't quack, walk and act like a duck it isn't a duck. If a band doesn't sound like metal than it's safe to say that that band isn't metal. If you think that Linkin Park is nu metal(or any other type of metal) you either don't listen to them or don't listen to nu metal(or any other kind of metal). Saying Linkin Park is metal is like saying Snoop Dogg is country. --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. Hybrid Theory is nu-metal/rap metal as hell. "One Step Closer", "Crawling", and "Papercut" are as nu-metal as anything by any other nu-metal acts of the day ie. Korn, Static-X, Limp Bizkit, Powerman 5000, Papa Roach, Orgy, etc. They were on the Family Values tour, for Pete's sake! This duck is quacking, waddling, and flapping its bill right in your face. Regardless, this is all just you arguing your own opinion rather than arguing from sources. Numerous reliable and authoritative sources place Linkin Park's early work squarely in the nu-metal/rap-metal wave that gained popularity at the turn of the millennium. Rolling Stone: "the nü-metal group you could bring home to mom — and still play while hanging out with your frat-bound friends". NME: "Out of all the shitty bands from the unexciting and artistically retarded nu-metal scene, Linkin Park was the only one with more than minus-five original ideas to its name." Allmusic: "The band's rise was indebted to the aggressive rap-rock movement made popular by the likes of Korn and Limp Bizkit, a movement that paired grunge's alienation with a bold, buzzing soundtrack." You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts, and the facts are that a preponderance of sources associate Linkin Park with nu-metal and rap-metal. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

"One Step Closer", "Crawling", and "Papercut" are as much nu metal as Korn or Static-X? What are you smoking? I wouldn't call Papa Roach nu metal either. Your so called "authoritative" are just the opinions of others as well since when are they taken as fact. Whoever wrote that NME quote is totally full of crap as Korn(the inventors of nu metal) have always been original. I guess these "sources" will hire anyone of the street and let them write about a genre they obviously haven't spent a lot of time listening to. I could do a better job. I guess Linkin Park is a first. A nu metal band that sounds NOTHING like nu metal. So just because Linkin Park played at Family Values that makes them metal? Ice Cube(rap), Stone Temple Pilots(grunge), Deadsy(synth rock), Incubus(Alternative rock),Primus(funk), Method Man & Redman(rap), Ja Rule(rap), The Crystal Method(techo?), Mobb Deep(rap) have all played at Family Values. Linkin Park had their tour Projekt Revolution with Korn and Snoop Dogg yet Snoop Dogg isn't metal. Bands that go on tour together don't always play the same genre. I'm not saying I don't like Linkin Park. In fact that couldn't be more wrong. Their first 2 albums where great and their 3rd was decent(A Thousand Suns isn't very good) but they shouldn't be put into a category that they share NO similarities with. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with WP:V, particularly WP:SOURCES. Your opinions about what sources have to say about these artists is irrelevant: These are the most notable and widely-distributed music publications in the world; they are widely recognized as professional, authoritative, and expert. These are professional music journalists writing in the most well-known music publications in the world...they know what they're talking about (no, Rolling Stone doesn't "hire anyone of the street and let them write about a genre they obviously haven't spent a lot of time listening to"...again, just because you don't agree with what the sources have to say doesn't make the source unreliable). If you feel you could do a better job, then apply to write for one of these publications: If your opinions get published in sources of this caliber, then maybe someone will care about them. 'Til then, your opinions have no no impact on an encyclopedia, as they are trumped by a mountain of reliable sources. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Eureka Season 5

Whatever your sources (which you failed to provide), this copy of the official press release for SyFy's summer programming specifically refers July 11, 2011 as the debut of Eureka's Season 4.5. I know there is a fifth season, I've seen also that it will contain 13 episodes, but it most likely isn't debuting until Summer 2012. KnownAlias X 10:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The season that is currently airing on SyFy right now is season 5. It has been advertised on SyFy as season 5. Not sure how I can add a reference to a commercial that aired on SyFy. --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning: Being disruptive

Hello Jimv1983, regarding the discussion on the Android talk page, until recently, I have ignored your behaviour that some would consider (at best) "a little bit disruptive" like using capital letters [10] [11] (it is considered "shouting" as you probably know). In addition to that you also broke the so called "3 Revert Rute", basically meaning you did 3 or more content reversions in less than 24 hours that are not reverting clear vandalism. [12] [13] [14] -- Not that breaking a rule is by itself bad, but when you disagree with some edits, not only an "edit war" is usually useless, it is also disruptive. As I mentioned on the Android talk page, there is no consensus that supports your theory, so you should not continue reverting to your prefered version. I have notified the WikiProject Software and I hope you wait for more opinions/comments before going into another "reversion war"...

Look mate... lets ignore the rules for a moment... I am confident you are not "trolling" and I can see you are likely passionate about the issue... and I genuinely understand your position, like I said "the recipe is not the same as the cake", but... this is how releases are counted in the "software world" in particular in the "open-source world"... you are fighting an uphill battle (in a metaphorical sense), going against the tide... I suggest you simply walk away... I know it is frustrating and you probably consider my an "a**hat" or worse, but just walk away... for your sake. --SF007 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually I work in the "software world". The source has been released but it is not and currently can not run on anything other than a development phone. The purpose of the source code release is to let developers start using it. For example, HTC can now start working on the ICS version of Sense, Samsung can start working on the ICS version of TouchWiz, Motorola can start working on the ICS version of MotoBlur. As of right now the general public cannot run ICS on an actual phone. The example of the source code for a Linux kernel being released is totally different. It is only the core of an OS and can't be ran on a device all by itself anyways. When it actually comes to a complete OS people have to actually be able to use it. By stating 11/15/2011 in the info box it will cause people coming to the article to believe that it is actually running on phones of the general public right now. Since that is not true it is giving misleading information. This is about providing the most accurate information possible. 2.3.7 is the latest version actually running on any phones. Also, I'm sorry for using capital letters like I did but it just seems that no one knows what they are talking about. --Jimv1983 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Phantom Menace 3D

On List of highest grossing films, you asked for a source that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was still in theaters. The source at the page confirms this, but I'll reproduce a more direct link here. It shows that there are still 17 theaters showing the film, which is enough to be considered still released. Kevinbrogers (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Cody Ross Red Sox 2012.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Cody Ross Red Sox 2012.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cody Ross Red Sox 2012.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cody Ross Red Sox 2012.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 02:14, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any problems I may have caused. I was trying to update the page with a picture of Cody Ross in the uniform of the team he actually plays for instead of the team he played for last year. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the one I supplied. What criteria does the picture have to meet to be allowed? --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: Korn album name (The Paradigm Shift)

No problem buddy. I do wish people would wait for an official press release or something else. I'll help out on the album page when more details come out. Infex (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Primeval. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Please stop changing terminology to suit your own preferences. Primeval is a UK article and uses UK spelling and terminology, as explained on the talk page. If you don't like the use of the word "series" in UK articles, you need to take it up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television. You should also note the instructions for {{Infobox television}} which say that "series" is used for UK television series. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

May 2014

Your recent editing history at 24 (TV series) 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. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 24: Live Another Day 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. ... discospinster _talk 02:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Your recent editing history at The Hunting Party (album) 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. STATic message me! 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Reply notice

See here. 100.35.4.40 (talk) 06:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm A guy saved by Jesus. Your recent edit to the page Matt Cain appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit is incorrect. Matt Cain was on the Giants in 2014. He contributed towards a World Series title and received a World Series ring for it. He was also present at all the post season games. He may not have been on the World Series roster but he is still considered a World Series champion for his contribution to a World Series title. --Jimv1983 (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

No, WikiProject Baseball consensus is to only list players as World Series champions if they were on the active roster for the postseason that year. Cain was not, as he was injured. This is exactly why the hidden note (which your edit deleted) says "Per discussion at WP:BASEBALL, do not add 2014 World Series championship." --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to that exact statement? I have added a section to the talk page of WikiProject Baseball to suggest changing that, if it really says that at all, which I couldn't find. I don't see that anywhere. He was on the team, contributed to getting the team to the post season, was at all the post season games and received a World Series ring giving him a total of 3 World Series rings. He deserves credit as being a 3x World Series champion. In sports broadcasting he is always referred to as a 3x World Series champion. --Jimv1983 (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Here is a past discussion on this type of issue, and here is a more recent one. Interestingly enough, both of them also had to do with Giants players as well. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 06:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Jimv1983. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Jimv1983. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

June 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Manchin. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)