User talk:Aradicus77

Category:Proto-punk groups has been nominated for merging

Category:Proto-punk groups has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internet Aesthetics

Hello - I just wanted to say thank you for your extensive contributions thusfar. I'm often editing Cottagecore to bring it in line with other pages e.g. Dark academia, and it would be great to discuss possible terminologies that internet aesthetic articles can draw on rather than 'proponents of x', 'fans of y' and so on. If you have any thoughts on this while traversing the different pages, do let me know - maybe it would be best to have the conversation in Talk: Internet aesthetics? Becsh (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'm not sure what you mean? But yeah we could have a discussion on that page's talk page. I've been working on establishing more articles on early internet art. There's big gaps in blog era movements that have not really been noted yet. It seemed at the turn of the century most artists saw the proliferation of art through the blogosphere to be the way forward for innovative art practices, and then that sentiment kind of died down but left the groundwork for a lot of what exists right now (the popularity of internet aesthetics pioneered by Tumblr users in the early 2010s, internet microgenres becoming normal in the online music sphere amongst gen Z post-hyperpop in 2020, but was pioneered by millennials with chillwave and vaporwave).

I don't know much about the aesthetics you highlighted cottagecore and dark academia. The main thing about writing about aesthetics here is that there's not many sources for the more nicher variants. I'd like a weirdcore page to exist but I don't think there's enough reputable sources. But feel free to add more nicher aesthetics to the Internet aesthetics related examples section. I think there should be more expansion for it to encompass notable aesthetics like bimbocore, barbiecore... etc. That saw some attention in the press but not notable enough for their own articles. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sandbox

I had made a mistake on reverting your sandbox. My apologies. No ill will intended. I fixed my error as well. Bntlyprce (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rage music

Hey dude my name is Deegs and I actually wanted to know if I could send you some super early instances of “proto” rage beats being made and rapped over in the UG as far back as 2017! A lot of the songs were made by me and my friends and have the streams to back up! I would love for our contributions to be included in the lore if possible 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My IG is @de3gs 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be cool but I don't think that's possible bro, like the way wikipedia works is you need like a news article / reputable source to write about stuff. There's hella stuff I want to add but if it doesn't have good sources it just gets deleted. Also people would ban me for promo too if I added it. But thanks for reaching out Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for fixing the hyperpop wiki page

hi, i see you around a lot on wikipedia and i wanna say thanks for fixing the hyperpop wiki page, it was really outdated and i saw you on the talk page for it saying you were gonna fix, i wanted to add some stuff to it but im still new to wikipedia and didnt wanna mess up anything

also your music taste is amazing btw Yellowcalx4 (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DAMN thanks a lot, it really means a lot to get messages like this im surprised a few people heave reached out lately. You should definitely add stuff to articles, good-faith edits are supported, if you got some sourcing it's pretty much fine, other editors can help in incorporating it better into the article.

Wish I could follow people on here, pretty cool community XP Aradicus77 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

same tbh, you seem very cool and again i appreciate you adding a bunch of stuff for modern music genres, im a genre nerd and it hurts seeing a lot of modern stuff just be wrong or outdated

i’m definitely gonna try and do some small edits to articles and stuff. also again amazing taste glad to see some twikipedia and xavsobased fans randomly on wikipedia Yellowcalx4 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello, I'm Lofi Gurl. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mumble rap without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mumble rap's stylistic origins being rap rock and hard rock is not sourced, those sources were dead, and to make stylistic origins sources like that you need far more than 1 source. One of the sources claiming it came from rap rock was also just an article about XXXtentacion's death that mentioned him making indie rock infused trap music. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fair enough, just state it in the edit summary if the links were dead so people can see what is being removed, the edit looked like an unconstructive removal at face value. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Noisecore a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it doesn't work when moving the page to another page when there's already a page made. When I submitted Shitgaze to Wikipedia:Requested Moves, users told me to just "cut-and-paste move" as you've stated. So I just started doing that for pages. It seems if a page has been denied, or previously deleted. You have to go through Wikipedia:Requested Moves to move it. Is there any other way to go about this? I waited 4 days when messaging whoever deleted the Jack Ruby (band) page originally in order to move it, and the person who deleted it never replied. Subsequently, the same thing with Shitgaze. I waited same amount of time and no one ever moved it and I was told I could move it myself with that method you mentioned. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information about Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I'll list the pages I've moved that way now: Noisecore and Shitgaze

Aradicus77 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The specific situation involving Shitgaze was unusual, both in that there was prior article history and that you were the only author of the draft; in that specific scenario a cut-and-paste move might have been warranted even though it in general isn't.

I have no idea what is going on with Jack Ruby (band). But, more generally than that, if you can't complete a move then you have to go to WP:RMTR; trying to circumvent the way the software works only causes trouble. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unconstructive talk page comments

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Welcome back to editing. However, I've got some concerns about some of your talk page comments you're leaving. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, where we're all supposed to be working together to improve things. You're not exactly starting things off on a positive note when you announce your presence to any of the article's past contributors with comments like

Approaching everyone with a "well you've all done terrible work but don't worry I'm here" isn't going to work. Please stop that immediately. Even if Wikipedia didn't have guidance against that, you should want to stop of your own accord - you're not doing yourself any favors talking to others like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody even replies though? It's not even really to even attack others, most of those articles were made years ago. Like the experimental rock one. It seemed someone complained about it in 2019. And it was still showing the same issues. It's kind of just a thing for me to mark what to add next but yeah I can change it doesn't matter really, but as you've said it's not really breaking a rule at all. It feels you've misconstrued what I was going for there. But I'll take your advice in good faithAradicus77 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I even made those claims is due to being shocked for example that a page like the industrial music page was voted GOOD ARTICLE. With a bunch of unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. Although it could be said that at the time it was a good article and as time went by people ruined it. But man I've contributed quite A LOT to these pages. This isn't to say I'll keep making those statements, but I'm quite literally the only person bothering to take the time to fix these articles. Many of them have gone 10-20 years without any big revamp edits to the whole body. And I've been surprised to see numerous editors come forward to thank me for these edits. I'm trying to "modernize" these pages, it seems music is one of the most unactive areas on Wikipedia. A page like indie rock doesn't even have 1k recent editors which is surprising to me for such a massive genre, and then you have punk rock that also had a lot of issues with it such as lack of information in more important areas and unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. I've taken hours out of my time to contribute.

I'll say sorry because I do want Wikipedia to encourage new young editors to join, that's kind of what I want to encourage here. I want to see a Gen Z music editing community on here, editors making good-faith edits and more experienced editors incorporating them into the articles, it would be great to find likeminded individuals on topics and music. I've known people IRL at school who said they contributed to Wikipedia at one point but it was removed instantly and thats why they've never bothered with the site again, this is the narrative I want to delete. So thank you for bringing this to my attention. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please just talk about actual things you wish to fix, there's no need for the idle complaining. I'm not saying they don't need clean up - the whole reason I came across your edits is because I keep an eye on the new wave article because there's been a recurring disruptive editor who keeps making bad edits over the years. It likely needs improvement due to their efforts. I'm just saying that comments like the above serve no purpose other than potentially rile up or offend anyone related to the article. And I'm saying there are guidelines against that, but even if there weren't, it's still a bad idea. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to stop. I'm not sure you had written that part yet at the time of me writing my response, as you've added to it a couple times now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that editor. Wasn't there an editor who kept reverting it being from the United States? Something like that I'm not sure. I think that was the reason the article was originally locked. In general if you want me to not edit an article like New wave I don't mind that's not really my forte anyway. I just focus on copyediting or organizing information to read better. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That other editor had a hard time separating their personal stances (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) from what reliable sources reported. We've got to follow WP:V and WP:RS and they, like many beginners, struggled with that. But they never stopped making those mistakes, and resorted to abusing multiple accounts. And got blocked. They've been gone for a bit though. Either they've left, or they've minimized disruption to that article to the point of it not being noticeable at least.

You're free to edit the article if you like, its up to you. Just be careful. Editing related to music genre is a constant issue. I imagine there will be a lot of discussions with others, and that's why I wanted to say something. You'll probably encounter some weird opinions. There's always some person with a strange hot take that "The Foo Fighters are nu metal" or something or other. There's always people who want to go off of their own personal stances, but we've got to remember to stick to what sources say, even when it doesn't match our worldview. And that can be tricky too, as you may find a reliable source that makes an assertion you completely disagree with. I remember someone presenting a reliable source that one of Lizzo's album was a rock album. I didn't agree with that. And while nothing forces me to add that of my own accord if I find it, if others wish to add it in good faith, it can be difficult to contest unless you can demonstrate its a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cool thing about Wikipedia is how blocks are so relaxed, that no matter what if you really showcase a change of heart you're allowed to come back, though having to wait some time. I feel that should be made more clear when you are blocked. When I was blocked I had no clue you could appeal it until a kind user told me. Also I barely focus on mainstream music genres like you mentioned nu metal. But what I've seen for genres as big as punk rock and indie rock. There doesn't seem to be a lot of people adding new information constantly or even recently, it's usually either removing or little fringe phrases. I think I've made up a good chunk of a lot of these articles recently. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:39, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and stuff like that lizzo thing you mentioned. I pretty much don't bother with album genre stuff like recently I added "post-punk" to The Modern Dance since it's been regarded as a post-punk album in recent years, but someone removed it to add art punk. At that point I just let it go. Wikipedia genre wars are pretty pointless and not as important as the rest of the article itself. I only really edit super erroneous claims, like when someone tried to say The Stooges (album) was heavy metal. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your approach may help some then; I tend to deal with genre issues more in the context of album and song articles, and I think that's where a lot of the disputes tend to break out. ("That song's not real metal", "that artist isn't real country", etc.) I generally just support whatever reliable sources directly state. Occasionally, when there's a particularly questionable assertion, the problem can be solved with adding some context too. ("The band has been described as (genre)(source)(source) but other publications refute the label.(source)(source).") Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperpop

Hello there! I saw this article on the GA nominations page, and just wanted to stop by to say great job on it. There's a few stylistic things which I wanted to let you know about, however, which are not strictly against GA rules but may be good to implement:

Per MOS:LQ, punctuation like periods and commas should generally be outside of quotation marks, especially for when sentence fragments are being used. This is done correctly, for instance, in the line Hyperpop has been described as "post-internet". but not in other lines like According to Vice journalist Eli Enis, hyperpop is not so much about following music rules, but "a shared ethos of transcending genre altogether, while still operating within the context of pop."
Per MOS:REFPUNCT, references should be placed after punctuation marks, and not before them. For instance, in the line Other influences included bubblegum pop[29] and emo[1], alongside heavy metal genres like crunkcore, nu metal, and metalcore.[25], reference #25 is placed correctly while reference #1 is not.
And to this point, make sure that citations appear in places where they follow the text which they are citing; I see this issue a few times, such as in the line Journalist Aliya Chaudhury believes 3OH!3 "created the main blueprint for hyperpop"[25] with their "ability to parody pop and take it to bewildering extremes," using "blown-out synths, and modulated vocals." where the citation should be moved to the end of the sentence instead of appearing midway through.
Finally, per MOS:LEAD (specifically MOS:LEADCITE), a lead should ideally be a summary of information already inside the article's body, and thus the citations there could be removed save for the more controversial sentences.

If you keep these things in mind and brush up the article accordingly, the article not only be easier to navigate and comply with the Manual of Styles, but it will also look more polished. Good luck on your nomination :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the headsup. I'll revamp accordingly. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

History of involuntary celibacy page

The involuntary celibacy page was deleted 5 times and then salted. White unsalted it and undeleted it to the chagrin of many veterans including feminist veterans, who advocated moving her initial writing to some page like misogyny. At this point, White was defining involuntary celibacy itself as a subculture. This offended even the most generic Wikipedians who then held a vote and moved her involuntary celibacy page to incel in 2018, continuing along the same line, except this time by saying "incel is a subculture of people who think they are involuntarily celibate. In both of these cases, the impetus, and her stated imeptus was to downplay involuntary celibacy as a real thing. A narrow majority of interested Wikipedians about a decade ago agreed that involuntary celibacy was not even a real thing, despite being confronted with over a dozen WP:RS sources. Later, all that disagreed with White on a regular basis were banned on tenuous grounds and started their own wikis and websites. Due to White's stated intention to challenge your article no matter what is on it, even though she preferred he article be at involuntary celibacy shows she wants to continue to monopolize the subject on here. The same reason she helped AFD an article about a related, bigoted forum. Your chances of your draft passing any kind of challenge is next to none. White is described by critics of Wikipedia as a "nuclear" administrator force on Wikipedia, along with other veterans like David G erard. If you continue your draft despite it just for fun, please keep in mind half your sources are actually about what White regards as the "incel subculture" and the other half are not about involuntary celibacy as a subject. The sources I gave, the first 12-15 are pretty much exclusively about involuntary celibacy with close to 0 mention of what some regard as a subculture. Actually nearly all the sources I provided don't even mention the word incel or blackpill at all except 4 or 5. I actually cannot think of any more sources beyond what I provided that would meet Wikipedia's standards, at this point, which totaled about 41 sources. The Fox News one can't be used though. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting, it does seem your article spoke more about the broad history of celibacy throughout different cultures and history. But some parts were badly written like the part on Jordan Peterson and there was a level of bias. Don't get me wrong, there's also heavy bias on the current incel page and red pill and blue pill page, and doesn't feel that encompassing of a neutral point of view, even though the incel subculture itself is far more extremist than the history of involuntary celibacy. I feel the article you added would not have been approved at all if was sent out. The one I'm trying to write is more focused on the history of the term involuntary celibacy and how people have regarded it throughout history. I don't really believe involuntary celibacy to be a "thing" in the sense that its a condition that affects people. But I'd like to read more into what you added and the writers you've cited. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also who is White? I don't think I've spoken to this person. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time. It's also an article that would rely a lot on primary sources. And this is kind of a history that a lot of people aren't focusing on at the moment as the incel subculture is far more prevalent in the media than the history. For example, most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Who is White", the person you were arguing against, see User:GorillaWarfare, where she gives her name. She also has her own Wikipedia article. She served on ArbCom and is the self-appointed steward of the incel page for over 7 years. Every few years some people come to her to put their sources or perspective in. The result always is she'll contribute to deleting any possible overlapping page, she will merge anything she can to her page to create a larger coatrack, any user arguing with her for more than a month will just end up banned, or she'll make very minor changes to her page.

"The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time"

Using sources that define it as the "incel subculture" would indeed skip the BS arguments and delete it solely for being a duplicate page, so yes that's why my sources (which aren't really mine, they been brought up time and time again in AFDs), are necessary to establish it as a unique article, as User:Valoem points out a decade ago. User:Valoem was the last good standing Wikipedian to do what you are attempting to do here and has his own draft in his userspace. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be somewhat notable, had no clue about that. I felt making a distinction between "involuntary celibacy" and "incel" would be the most useful thing to happen to the topic on Wikipedia but it seems like it probably won't be possible until like the 2030s or something. There's not enough wide talk in academia or in the media of the actual history of "involuntary celibacy" and most discussion is geared around the subculture like I've mentioned. Wikipedia seems to pick and choose on what to make difficult and what not to make difficult. There's a lot of articles I've observed that if an admin wanted to guard could remove a lot of sources by employing rules on a whim. Like I've seen sometimes people use sources that aren't allowed and it stay on... etc. I feel I might just let go of the involuntary celibacy and blackpill page and focus on just researching the topic on my own. Since the incel page is so guarded and this is not a war I have any time or patience to fight. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago" This is original research, first argued by User:Thylacoop5 on a wiki I created (unrelated, notice he's also banned from Wikipedia). It's entirely speculative based on google scholar and google books queries. What a reputable Wikipedian would want to see are sources devoted to involuntary celibacy as a singular subject which in turn contribute content to the article 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was coined 300 years ago. It wouldn't be original research, it would just not be allowed because its a primary source. If a big news site wrote about it then it'd be allowed. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The real history of involuntary celibacy is just monopolized at the moment and I can't see that changing unless the consensus in the media and general culture changes. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not entirely monopolized, there are websites exclusively about involuntary celibacy, and wikis, Facebook Groups, and quite a few sources I provided. A singular page would need to rely more on pre-2018 articles though, and you are right about that. But there are also academics who continue that dry matter-of-fact content on involuntary celibacy as a singular subject, like Karel Karsten Himawan. Most of all though, it's just not a popular thing to write about as a dry subject. Calling things a subculture or group or movement is a sexier and lazier and easier way to write about things 98.118.249.156 (talk)

FWIW, you're talking to a sock of the WMF-banned Willwill0415, who's been on a multi-year crusade to try to POV-push on the incel article (and related topics). While they have a rather significant grudge against me, as you've probably noticed, their descriptors of me as a "nuclear administrator" and so on are highly exaggerated. I am an administrator on Wikipedia, but as with all administrators, I do not use my admin tools in topic areas where I am "WP:INVOLVED" — including the incel page. If you continue working on your draft I may well express my opinion at the ensuing DRV discussion about whether the page should be recreated, where it will be considered alongside other comments from other editors, but will not carry any more weight than any other editor's comment simply because I'm an admin. I will not (and should not, and cannot) unilaterally prevent you from creating the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im not working on the involuntary celibacy article anymore. At the moment theres not enough consensus in the media or academic focus on the topic outside of the subculture as our conversation outlined. Im not collaborating with this user I was hearing them out also I reverted most of their edits and kept their sources for my own independent research outside of wikipedia. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generation Z music genres has been nominated for deletion

Category:Generation Z music genres has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination of Internet aesthetics has failed

Your good article nomination of the article Internet aesthetics has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to witch house (genre), you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ..Also... stop restoring the template:about for the top of the page time after time again.... It is obvious that the page is about a music genre considering the page is literally named "witch house (genre)" Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy accusation. Everyone is free to remove whatever, but it was strange to me they kept trying to remove any mention of rappers on the article, when I had already sourced the additions. I was tired of them removing sourced information around 3 times now at this point. Calling it "own" is weird. I don't care that much to be guarding articles, but I am one of the only people contributing to these articles that haven't had massive changes in almost decades Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And you just reverted it again, are you missing the article I sourced? I don't understand what's going on Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.complex.com/music/a/kyle-garb/witch-house-microgenre-halloween Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also it's not me that added that template about? That's been there for years Aradicus77 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Music genres by generation

A tag has been placed on Category:Music genres by generation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pussy Galore (band)

Hi there. I thought I would try to reach out to you regarding the Pussy Galore article, as you seem to have a pretty decent knowledge of noise rock, etc. The article has/had some conflicting information about whether the band originated at Brown University in 1984, or in Washington D.C. in 1985. I've been aware of the band since they were still active in the 80s, and while I never saw Pussy Galore live, I did have some records in the 80s and have seen former members play in later bands. However, I am not confident on their origin. If you have any insight, and could possibly know of good sourcing, that would be fantastic. Cheers, CAVincent (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems other sources online point to them forming September 1985, Washington, DC, United States. But it's possible there's more info in this book: "I'm Just The Drummer: My Time behind Sonic Youth, Pussy Galore, Chrome Cranks & BB Gun Magazine" Aradicus77 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative hip-hop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native tongues.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! -- mikeblas (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-rock

From your summary given for your reversion of my edit: "The first wave of post-rock was in Chicago" dismisses the thorough and cited descriptions of English first wave post-rock bands in the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph describing the Chicago school. I highly advise we focus on making it a concise subsection of the 1990s history section to avoid engaging in an editing war if you are adamant that it should receive extra emphasis. "the section wasn’t even capitalized"; this criticism does not consider that you've left the heading of the section on the second wave untouched. I have personally not seen sections in Wikipedia pages be given title case capitalization, but if you beg to differ, other editors who have contributed to the page may also make the same changes I have made. TreeLethargy (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get you Aradicus77 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Artists on the Nurse with Wound List has been nominated for deletion

Category:Artists on the Nurse with Wound List has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Industrial music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indeterminacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dariacore

Thanks for your work on the Hyperpop and Digicore articles. I'd like to expand Dariacore into it's own article as well, if there are enough sources out there to justify it without WP:OR. Sadly much of the genre's history and progression has been lost due to a lack of media coverage. You seem to have a lot more experience with Wikipedia than I do, so if you think it's possible and would like to chat more, my discord handle is x3haven. HavenSumser (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hii i would be interested in starting or discussing something like that!! i sent a request, my user is caitlynsult or something like that Yellowcalx4 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Art of Walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

From the introduction of WP:BLP:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts

...so you may not rant about a BLP in a negative light. And per WP:POLEMIC, part of the userpage guideline, says prohibits the following on userpages:

Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

So no, you may not have that content. BLP is non-negotiable. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 18:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK whatever. Weird since it's not even an article Aradicus77 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, as they are public.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Gothic rock. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. You might not technically be going over the 3RR limit, but you and the other editor are continually reverting each other over the course of days. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:50, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not see the conversation at the talk page??? 2 users literally concluded that Woovee was using WP:OWN. Why are you commenting on my page and not his? Aradicus77 (talk) 16:26, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you commenting on my page and not his?

Maybe you should've checked either that user's talk page or my contributions history before you said this. I recommend you do that.

That another editor exhibits WP:OWN behavior does not excuse edit warring. As someone who has gotten caught up in some edit wars, just drop it for a few days and let things be, and try to get some other opinions involved.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:24, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punk rap

Hi, I’m not used to making big edits, but the changes you’ve made to pages like hyperpop are amazing. I mostly agree with your talk page notes—the sources do seem to focus more on punk and metal’s influence on hip hop than on defining a new genre. The tricky part is coverage on the page starts and stops around 2017, which misses recent shifts. Over the past year or so, bands like Kneecap and Bob Vylan have really come to the forefront around issues of free speech, anti-Zionism, and support for Palestinian nationalism. [1] After Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set, where they protested against the Gaza genocide, they were widely called a punk rap duo by news sources. Also, it’d be great to include pioneers like Ice-T’s Body Count and B L A C K I E to round things out. 2A02:C7C:E4F8:F800:99D5:3D23:C450:11DE (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this is a fair point to make then. At first when I saw that article I thought it was probably due to be marked for deletion as "punk rap" doesn't seem to have ever been used as a specific microgenre, more so an aka for Rap Rock like Rage Against the Machine. But I don't know, if there are recent sources calling those artists punk rap then that should be added to the article, but at the same time I do feel punk rap is not talked about enough for it to have its own article and should probably be under the rap rock article. The term is also incredibly broad as it links Odd Future and trap metal, opium, and all kind of rap styles under "punk" due to them drawing aesthetics from the genre or their confrontational sound. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shoegaze page edit confusion

Hi Aradicus77, I noticed that you again reverted some of my latest edits on the Shoegaze page, so I'd like to find some consensus because I just don't see the reason for that and I don't want to engage in edit wars.

1) You said that my Far Out Magazine sources were not reliable, so okay, I removed them. No questions. I'm only not sure what you meant by "unexplained removed sources that were not Far Out Magazine" addressed to me. I only removed my Far Out sources as they're unreliable.

2) You wrote, "Pornography is mentioned in the article, but adding extra words to it is not sticking to the original source." I actually didn't add "extra words" when I wrote that "The Cure, with their gothic, textured sound from the early 1980s — particularly on their 1982 album Pornography — also had a significant influence on shoegaze bands." The words are taken directly from the article you approved.

3) Next, about content arrangement. Why did you put my sentence about Cocteau Twins and The Jesus and Mary Chain's influence on shoegaze bands in the section "1960s–1970s: Forerunners," if they are clearly widely regarded as two big 1980s influences on early shoegaze? Their most influential albums (Treasure (1984) and Psychocandy (1985)) were all released in the 1980s.

4) I don't even mention that the link you provided to Pitchfork doesn't mention the American dream-pop band Galaxie 500 as an influence on any of the first wave of shoegazers (please, reread the article you linked to).

5) I also made quite a good concise introduction: "The genre reached its peak in the early 1990s, particularly in the UK's underground rock scene, but was soon sidelined by American grunge and early Britpop acts, leading many bands to break up or reinvent their sound. From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival, with some referring to new music from this period as nu gaze. This revival has also led to the development of blackgaze and influenced niche microgenres such as shitgaze and witch house."

You removed even that...

I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on these points. Again, I'm not interested in edit wars. If there’s a good reason for reverting (like with Far Out links), that’s perfectly fine — but right now, I’m not seeing the reason.

Buf92 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) The pitchfork link states "shoegaze has been attached to output as diverse as Galaxie 500's reverberant chimes"

B) I'll re-add some of your Cure edits

C) When I checked your edit summaries I saw many other sources were removed, not sure if that's through you manual reverting or something else, but there was really only 1 Far Out Magazine source. (Here's the link for Far Out not being allowed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)

D) I kept some of your re-wording in the lead, but I just trimmed stuff in the article. I never removed your lead rewriting, there's no need to write "niche" genres since that's not mentioned in the source. "Some referring to this music as nu gaze" is also a Weasel Word, see here: WP:AWT

Not trying to remove your edits or anything like that you made good-faith edits. At first there was confusion since it was detected you used AI, and then later some info was removed that already had proper sourcing. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) Yes, Pitchfork does say that. But the sentence we're talking about is about the first wave of shoegazers' influences, and none of them mentions Galaxie 500 as their influence in the corresponding links, including Pitchfork. Pitchfork just says that the "shoegaze" label has been attached (in retrospect) to diverse sounds, including Galaxie 500, but there's no mention that Slowdive or some other 1980s band listened to them when they were crafting shoegaze. The Pitchfork link is just misleading in this case.

B) Okay, thanks. But I'd drop parentheses around "gothic, textured sound." It's not a big deal, just preference. Won't fight over it.

C) I'm not sure what sources those were removed. As far as I remember, I only removed my Far Out sources. I know you told me about them a few times, so I removed them.

D) I've written "removed" my introduction because when I was writing to you my first message, I didn't see mine (I think quite a good introduction part): "The genre reached its peak in the early 1990s, particularly in the UK's underground rock scene, but was soon sidelined by American grunge and early Britpop acts, leading many bands to break up or reinvent their sound." Now I see it, thanks.

I also deliberately used the phrasing "From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival..." to emphasize that the shoegaze revival is ongoing to this day. I think it just sounds better and connects the revival to our times than "By the 2000s and 2010s, shoegaze experienced a revival." Again, won't fight over it.

"Some referring to this music as nu gaze" was not my exact wording. The original wording (I have it) was: "From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival, with some referring to new music from this period as nu gaze." I tried to be objective, since many people really don't like this "nu gaze" moniker, but some (as the news outlets in the sources) use this term.

Okay, thank you. Hope you will respond to any of this.

P.S. I used AI as a search tool, but it added itself to website URLs. Won't hapeen again

Buf92 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) The nu gaze phrasing is original research since the source doesn't use that language. Even if people don't like the term it has to be mentioned in the original source. Even then it still reads as a weasel word with "some referring"

B) You might be right on Galaxie 500 since they came a bit later but I'll see if I can find more sources to support them being there since nowadays they are seen alongside Spacemen 3 as important progenitors of shoegaze

C) For the onwards thing, Wikipedia pages on genres aim to be brief and concise, "By the 2000s and 2010s," is straight to the point, yes the revival is still ongoing in the 2020s and might be in the 2030s, but in the sources in the article its tagged that it emerged in the early 2000s and continued into the 2010s. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A) Okay, I got your point. Let it be.

B) I think the issue isn’t so much that they came a bit later. I think it’s because they were not that influential as a band in the first place — at least for early shoegaze bands (even American ones, let alone British). I myself tried to find some early shoegaze band mentioning them, but never found any. I think it’s misleading to even cite them among early shoegaze influences, so I hope you will remove that link to be precise in the information.

C) Got it. No questions. Buf92 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's sources that still mention Galaxie 500 as being lumped into the shoegaze movement at the time, maybe you're right that there's not really good sources atm of shoegaze bands citing them as an influence, but they were definitely considered part of that movement. Adding the Guardian source I just found that talks a bit about what they did for shoegaze. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This source is more specific on their association with early shoegaze, but honestly, still doesn’t mention that they influenced any early shoegaze band, which is what the original sentence is referring to:

“American underground bands Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth, Galaxie 500, Dinosaur Jr., and Pixies were also cited by various shoegaze bands as touchstones for their respective sounds.”

You could mention them in a separate sentence. Something like this, if you insist on leaving them:

“Galaxie 500 were grouped with the early shoegaze scene, though their sound was very distinct from typical shoegaze.” [your Guardian link]

Btw, the author of the article himself says they were “heartbreakingly apart,” which means they were outsiders. Maybe that explains why nobody from the early shoegaze bands mentions them — they were barely known.

I don’t know, but I feel like this could be taken to the main Talk page to find consensus. It’s pretty clear that the sources just don’t add up — at least, not in the sentence where they’ve been placed. Buf92 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you!

		The Music Barnstar
		Great work on improving coverage of music genres, especially Hyperpop. Keep it up! :D Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not Forum

... to comment edits made on other articles.

Re: [2].

Answer: because it wouldn't be relevant to put an image of Bolan in the infobox for glam rock either, Woovee (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Aradicus77 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gothic rock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Damned.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

October 2025

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Post-punk and Gothic rock) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee

Hello Aradicus77, if I see more edit warring between you and Woovee in other articles, I'll propose an interaction ban at WP:ANI. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 13:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This led to a sitewide block without automatic expiry; see your block log and the ANEW thread for details. Advice for appealing blocks can be found at WP:GAB. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree how can you just do that before any of us even discussed? The thing says if we agree to an interaction ban we get unblocked. I've agreed to do that. What do? You didn't even look at what I had to say or the convo and just decided to block us both. Same thing you did last time without even looking at the logs of previous convos which were extensive. You do know I edit so many other pages not related to Woovee? Aradicus77 (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How could you undo their edits again before reaching a consensus with them?

Regarding an interaction ban, there was no such agreement since the block was placed, so please create an unblock request that explicitly agrees to an interaction ban and all is good from my side.

It's great that you edit many other pages unrelated to Woovee; you could continue editing these! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:51, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely tired of this situation. Let me just ask one question before I send in an unblock. The next time I see Woovee editing this way do I just report him to ANEW straight off the bat without touching the page? He did not interact with my talk page entry at all and that was the talk page I opened up before I even began adding new edits to the page which he reverted every single one in a row. [3]

Please take a closer look at this. You also did nothing about his rude edit summary saying I don't speak english. And some of the info you give me is conflicting, you said before a Wikipedia editor doesn't have to be active all the time, so if Woovee doesn't reply to a talk page concerning his edits does that mean he can just ignore the talk page and keep his edits live for how long exactly?? I've said countless times it looks to me like everyone is giving him a pass and it looks like challenging that is leading to both of us getting harder sanctions. No one has given me a good rundown on how to tackle this situation amicably.Aradicus77 (talk) 23:56, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you see Woovee editing, they're either topic banned from music or interaction banned from you, so if you see them editing and that edit is a revert of one of your edits, please let me know. Else, if you see them editing normally, you've found an article you'll now need to avoid editing and that's life then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:58, 28 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is now confusing. So when we both get unbanned from post-punk and gothic rock, what goes on there? If Woovee starts editing its his turf and I can't touch it or the other way round? There's still some contributions I'd like to make to those pages. At the same time it's not like the end all be all I could deal with months topic ban on those pages or whatever else is an appropriate sanction, but this "that's life" is confusing to me. Does this mean I can't touch those pages ever? How's that not WP:OWN Aradicus77 (talk) 00:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of you would be allowed to edit the articles about Post-punk, Gothic rock, Goth subculture or any other article where the other editor has recently edited. The entire community can edit these articles, you two can't. It's the opposite of article ownership as it ensures that your (plural your) disruptive editing does not longer influence what the article says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Does this never expire? Is this the interaction ban you speak of? When is this able to be appealed. And where's more information on interaction bans, since as you said if Woovee edits an article now I can't edit that one and vice versa? (Not much of a problem with this since he seems to just edit like 5 diff articles) Aradicus77 (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"if they agree to an interaction ban or a topic ban" Here it says I can pick one or the other? Aradicus77 (talk) 00:10, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding fairness, [4] and [5] were both reverts of Woovee's edits, in the same article, without a consensus having been found in the meantime, while you both were still blocked for edit warring in two other articles. A helpful essay exists at WP:DISCFAIL, but its advice is unsuitable for situations where the same editors come into conflict with each other again and again. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:02, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction ban with User:Woovee

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Aradicus77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Request interaction ban between me and User:Woovee Aradicus77 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked with an interaction ban towards Woovee that can be appealed at WP:AN at any time. Welcome back. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:34, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aradicus77 (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ToBeFree: From what I understand, you're good with an unblock given the agreed-upon IBAN, yes? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Significa liberdade, I'm not sure if they currently understand its consequences and have clicked the link to WP:IBAN behind my words "interaction ban" in the "Woovee" section above, but that aside, yes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:11, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aradicus77: Could you explain in your own words what an IBAN from Woovee would mean? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Aradicus77, to answer some of the questions above, the ban would not have an automatic expiry time; it would be there until it is successfully appealed. That can be done at the unblocking administrator's talk page, and at WP:AN if they don't want to lift the ban directly. Most of this is described in the banning policy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An IBAN from Woovee means I will not interact with them anywhere on Wikipedia. I will not reply to, mention, or revert them and will focus on constructive editing.

The only thing is I have questions I asked before.

Does this mean I can never touch post-punk, gothic rock and goth subculture again? And Woovee can't either? To be fair given I mostly edit modern music genres I don't mind that at least it keeps Woovee off pushing bias on those pages, but I just don't know if that's the actual case or if that's getting unblocked later on. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:04, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Woovee himself said "I would ideally like to not cross their paths on the post-punk, gothic rock, goth subculture articles". Asking for clarification on this specifically because there's no way he should be editing these pages and then I'm blocked off, when the situation arose because of his incessant reverts.

In hindsight, as ToBeFree has said. The right choice to have done would have been for me to not edit for like a month, come back and then make the reports. But at the same time, not sure if that would have led to anything given that if Woovee is not edit-warring with me there's nothing to really report. This user literally does not edit anything but these pages.Aradicus77 (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have some of my sympathies including with there's no way he should be editing these pages and then I'm blocked off, but my understanding ends at when the situation arose because of his incessant reverts. It doesn't matter if that's the case. Wikipedia has 7,083,656 articles at the moment, and if you're unable to edit some of them because they were recently edited by someone you should avoid interacting with, then that happens. And if their edits are bad, someone else will revert them sooner or later. There is no urgency for you specifically to do so. There is also no harm done to the encylopedia by not letting you edit a specific page. You're one of 49,893,622 registered users. You'll find something else to edit and the encyclopedia will survive without you editing the page.

The interaction ban does not strictly prevent you from editing an article even if the other user happens to have recently edited it. It does prohibit you from doing so intentionally because the other user has edited it, and it strictly prohibits you from reverting their contributions. If you edit the same sentences, edits that aren't intended to be reverts might accidentally undo something and make people unnecessarily upset, so that should probably be avoided. Again, shit happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misinterpreted what I was saying. I literally do not care about those articles that much. Whatever happens later on is fine by me. Incessant reverts was referring to how the situation arose, and why it wouldn't make sense to have him allowed to edit those pages. Also those stats are misleading. A more accurate statistic would be checking the recent editors at post-punk, gothic rock, and goth subculture. It's incredibly tiny, also just checking the logs the past year. It's a very small amount of people making massive changes to these articles. Literally most of the content on wikipedia is edited by like 500 people or less. You do know that?

So from what you are saying we will be allowed to edit those pages again by the way? I never edited post-punk specifically to target Woovee. Woovee was specifically targeting me lol, that's the crux of the whole issue. Anytime I added something to those pages he would be ruthless in cutting my edits out, only for me to have to open talk pages... etc. To have them back which led to him being accussed of WP:OWN by User:3family6 and User:Issan Sumisu.Aradicus77 (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also on the statistics point, it’s surprising that out of 49 million registered users, no one ever created an article about the Sex Pistols at the Lesser Free Trade Hall, arguably one of the most important concerts in history. This situation has made me less motivated to contribute to Wikipedia, as the site often reflects whatever limited sources exist, even when those sources are poor.

What drew me to contribute was the chance to make overlooked but valuable information accessible. For example, I added the note about Jon Savage coining the term “post-punk” after more than 20 years of that page existing. I've seen people online recently now relay that piece of information and now that feels good that a valuable fact is now out there for people to learn about in detail on the development of this genre. But It’s frustrating that so much important context is still missing, especially perspectives beyond the US and UK.

I can't hate on the site fully since it allows the flow of information but man it sucks that even after all this work being done, you can have someone like Woovee come in and literally remove every single one of your contributions like it was nothing as he did in goth subculture and not a single admin step in or any discussion. Then I'm the bad guy for reverting it back lol. Aradicus77 (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way sorry if any of this comes across as rude, again English is like my 4th language which I mentioned before when Woovee said I couldn't speak it Aradicus77 (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. Isn't my first language either.

You won't have to worry about getting reverted by Woovee anytime soon. They have also already agreed to the interaction ban.

You may be unable to fully edit your favorite topic area, and you may even be mostly unable to edit it, wherever that otherwise means interacting with Woovee.

You would be completely allowed to edit articles Woovee has not edited yet. If these are a rare resource, it would be inappropriate of you to edit them for the sole purpose of preventing Woovee from editing them. I guess that's obvious. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine Aradicus77 (talk) 05:17, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. Welcome back to Wikipedia and feel free to remove or archive this all. It's not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accidentally replied on Woovee's talk page. Here's what I said: I'm pretty confused on this unblock, before this block it showed that I couldn't edit post-punk and gothic rock (which I assumed was the same for Woovee), but now I can? How is that fixing the issue. Won't Woovee just appeal his IBAN and then continue doing what he was doing before. My next step from this if I see the same behaviours on those pages is to just report him again anyway without edit warring but as I said I'm not sure what that would lead to given there would be no interaction from me on the page but him. I'm not out here to kamikazee myself and get me and Woovee blocked for the greater good or anything lol but it feels like that's what its making this out to be Aradicus77 (talk) 22:09, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you can. Practically, you shouldn't, and for most edits you could make there now, you are not allowed to. Anything that comes close to a revert of Woovee's edits in an article they recently edited must be avoided.

Regarding reporting them, no, you may not make reference to or comment on [Woovee] anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly. Exceptions are listed at WP:BANEX, but reporting them for behavior unrelated to the interaction ban itself is not an exception listed there. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're overestimating the importance of you of all 49,929,877 registered Wikipedia users noticing or undoing or reporting issues with Woovee's editing. If their edits are as bad as you seem to think, others will notice and take care of it. There is no urgency and there's no need for you personally to intervene. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've told you numerous times that barely anyone edits those pages. Anyway it's all just clarification I needed but you do know there's literally hundreds of pages with wrong edits that last ages. Some of these even get on the news how many old "hoax" pages have stayed on the site for decades. All in all if I'm not editing that page he shouldn't either.Aradicus77 (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verifying edits

Hello, Aradicus77. I just wanted to remind you to always try to double-check your edits before making them, so there is less risk of including what could constitute WP:OR. I'm referring to your recent edits on the post-punk page regarding the band The Feelies [6] and Jon Savage coining the term "new musick" (I assume this was your edit a while ago based on your comment above this thread). It's not a critique, just an observation. As I mentioned before, it can be helpful to use AI at times, as it can serve not only as a great search tool but also provide useful insights that you can verify yourself. I verified that "the feelies" was a reference to Brave New World [7] and that the term "new musick" wasn't coined by Savage [8] with AI's help. Just remember, Wikipedia requires precision. Buf92 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man I just thanked you about fixing that, when editing pages more info comes out and different users fix stuff. I wrote like 15k+ words to that article so there's parts where you will have issues... I will not be using AI and don't know Wikipedia's stance on it right now. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking only about edits you did, not others. It's your right not to use AI's help (although you could try as an experiment). It works well, but only when you double-check what information it finds for you. The errors I managed to find were found with the help of AI. I double-checked what it was suggesting and came to the conclusion it was valid. Wikipedia requires precision in facts per WP:OR. If facts are valid, I don't think there's a problem with using AI. Buf92 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mention other edits, I mentioned my edits. Look at the log, I've added a lot to that page. I've told you before the main problem with AI is the fact it will lie and conjure things up when it's wrong. Do with that what you wish Aradicus77 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But you just did mention other edits – "… and different users fix stuff" – as if the two edits we're talking about now are not yours. Buf92 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Buf92 I'm honestly baffled that any WP editor would actually encourage the use of AI for any reason whatsoever. CAVincent (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any issue with that. No one says to use AI blindly and copy-paste whatever it tells (we always need to double-check what it says). See the difference. IMO, it's still better to consult AI than to make edits unsupported by the original source. Buf92 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unsupported by the original source? Jon Savage's article was on a music genre, The Feelies are a popular band in that genre, someone who is reading that would assume that was what he was referring to. Then you pointed out he was referring to the brave new world thing, ok problem solved. Why are you acting like that isn't an easy mistake anyone could have made? What's the deal with calling it original research? Aradicus77 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm talking about. You're not very careful with details but are trying to prove you're right. Then why does he mention all the other bands in his article with capital letters in their names, but writes "the feelies" specifically in lowercase? Just a typo? His whole article is written in an exaggerated manner, and "the feelies" serves a reference to feelies from the book Brave New World, [9] meaning the sense of entertainment he gets from all these new post-punk sounds. Buf92 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bro this is such a non-argument. Are wikipedia editors not allowed to make mistakes anymore LOL i literally did not oppose your edit and thanked you, what are you talking about Aradicus77 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, this "non-argument" is valid, but you brush it off because "AI lies". Make your mistakes, but remember – with each mistake, Wikipedia loses its reliability, and there's no guarantee others will fix them. Buf92 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fellow editors aren't enemies you are trying to squash. I've always been open to incorporate your additions, why do you keep trying to paint me as if I'm some kind of runt who is coming in to deface articles and has to be get rid of? You also created your account literally a month ago so why are you acting like you know everything about this siteAradicus77 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "The Greatest Modern Artists" section on your user page

I noticed that list of artists you've mentioned in your user page may be confusing. Could you elaborate who are they? Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obscure most are from soundcloud so it's hard to find results but I think most of them will be on RateYourMusic Aradicus77 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"2000s internet" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2000s internet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12 § 2000s internet until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]