Why would you describe someone as a "theatre, film and television actress" when "actress" already sums it up succinctly? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:41, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I originally only wanted to put theatre and film but for some reason you had a problem with that --FMSky (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did you want to put theatre and film in the first place? She's an actress who works in three very common mediums. "Actress" is sufficient. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to be clear - you realize there's a difference between our articles on "finger" and "the finger", yes? DS (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've replied to your last comment on the WorldNetDaily talk page. Isi96 (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I known, but don't really have anything to add other than what I already said ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --FMSky (talk) 09:03, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't want to fight on this....seen you around a lot and respect your work. But to me New Wave started in CBGBs with Blondie and Talking Heads. I'll have a re-read of the sources and construct an argument on the article talk. Best....Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it's just that the source currently in the article names the UK as the origin, so it would be a contradiction to put US in the infobox. So remove that statement/source as well then

Friendly reminder of the active arbitration remedies in effect on the page, as you seem to have overlooked the banner at the top of the page when you were editing: You are subject to additional rules when you edit this article. If you do not follow these rules, you may be blocked from editing: You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message. You removed long-standing content in this edit, I objected to and reverted the removal, and you repeated the removal in violation of the rule. (It's also called edit-warring). Space4Time3Continuum2x🖖 11:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know, i didnt see the banner. I've stopped editing there --FMSky (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For few days I noticed you are reverting my edits on various pages without understanding the changes and you are not giving any proper explanation. If you want to add or remove any specific topic then do it. But stop reverting my legal edits. I am trying to make Wikipedia better because I love it from the bottom of my heart. So, please don't break my heart. By the way, it seems you and I have the same interest of articles. Maybe we can discuss with each other and work together to make Wikipedia better. Thank you for understanding. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

the problem is that you keep removing loads of pictures from articles without explanation. You might want to look at your talk page where this very issue has been explained to you

On the Brandon Novak article, I reverted a birthdate as unsourced [1]; I clarified in the edit summary "the source makes no mention at all of what year he was born in". So I wondered if I'm missing something. (1) I removed the "1977" saying unsourced, and moving the source given into a spot in the article body. (2) After you reverted that, pointing out rightly that it was literally sourced (d'oh!), I repeated the edit with the clarification. I didn't want to throw away a source, even though it did not support the birth year, so I moved it to support other content in the body that it could support. The supporting source^[1] is fairly lengthy, and I read it again, but found no mention of a year in 1970's. To find the birth year, is it a matter of doing some math among the varous timelines reported on? Or was there another reason the birth year should be in there? Or has my editing there just been confusing. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 15:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article says he was 40 as of 10 December 2018, so I used the template "age as of date" in the infobox FMSky (talk) 17:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah. I see. Thanks. _signed, Willondon (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But actually i just realized that this literally puts his bd at 10 dec 1978 so the template isnt even needed --FMSky (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I see you have reverted my edits to Dirt (Alice in Chains album). Would it be alright if the definite articles get added back in without the commas? I think a lot of people would say, "Do you know the singer Layne Staley?," not, "Do you know singer Layne Staley?" To me, it's ordinary English. But what's your issue with this wording? Please let me know, I would like to hear your thoughts before I make any further edits of that sort to the page. JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tbh, I think it sounds incredibly stupid and unnatural, and I dont think someone would talk like this in real life: "He admired the singer Layne Staley's lyrics and voice, and the lead guitarist Jerry Cantrell's guitar riffs." -- as opposed to "He admired vocalist Layne Staley's lyrics and voice and lead guitarist Jerry Cantrell's guitar riffs" --FMSky (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree, to me it's perfectly normal, natural English -- a lot of people in real life would say, "The singer Layne Staley/the guitarist Jerry Cantrell," not, "Singer Layne Staley/guitarist Jerry Cantrell." This is why I add definite articles, because it is standard English. It's removing the definite article that sounds clunky, as it is a type of journalese known as a false title.

I know it says this on the page I linked in the subject line, but do these sentences that use the definite article feel stupid or unnatural to you? And if so, why?:

The dog, Rex, was a golden retriever.
The sister, Jessica, arrived by car.
The newest restaurant, the Golden Duck, opened last year. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:43, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well yes it depends obviously, in these cases it sounds perfectly normal. In the ones I mentioned though it comes across as awkward. Imo these changes would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis FMSky (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so you know, I have removed the descriptions of Staley and Cantrell from that section of the article, due to the fact that it points out that Jerden admired Staley's lyrics and voice and Cantrell's guitar riffs. Personally, I think that their roles in the band should not have to be pointed out when they are explained immediately afterwards -- "He admired the vocalist's lyrics and voice and the lead guitarist's guitar riffs" seems kind of redundant, when it could just be written as, "He admired Staley's lyrics and voice and Cantrell's guitar riffs." To me, that sentence works better. But how do you feel? I wanted to bring this here as we are discussing the article in question. JeffSpaceman (talk) 02:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes i agree, that definitely seems like a sensible change --FMSky (talk) 04:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objection. I cited multiple sources to put progressive metal there. That was me who put them there in the first place. How is that insufficient? I understand we're not to put everything in there at risk of overcrowding, but there was extra support offered. I'd like a more thorough discussion than "only most common genres for the infobox", because, well, I'd argue that it is. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, I just feel they are almost exclusively described as post-metal, and that progressive metal and the others cited (metalcore, wtf?) are needlessly missleading, especially since they're just thrown in without any context --FMSky (talk) 04:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Though it matters not in the end, you wouldn't agree that Isis' sound owes a debt to Tool, groundbreakers in progressive rock and progressive metal? In any case, I'm glad we could come to a resolution. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you uploaded this photo, on what basis did you judge that it was actually Obrecht and not one of the other people mentioned on the Alchetron page? Someone has since changed the caption in the article to indicate that it's a photo of Obrecht's assistant. DS (talk) 01:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the file from the page and tagged it for deletion since it isn't clear if its really him --FMSky (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]