I did my research. I'm the one that added that it was going to be included on TH1RT3EN (with a source, mind you). Still, as a single, it predated the announcement of the album.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I wanted to let you know that I was the person who searched and found every review for The Drug in Me Is You by Falling In Reverse. In my search, I found many more negative reviews than anything else. I found very few positive or mixed, but I added them on the album article to balance bias. Despite this, there are many more negative reviews for the album. As Metacritic has not rated this album, the overall judgement is subjective, but the amount of negative reviews unfortunately constitute a negative label for the article. Another editor felt it necessary to add "mixed" and would not stop adding it. Because there were some positive reviews, I did not want to start an edit war with him so I left the label as "mixed to negative". This would be sufficient, though negative is more suiting. There is currently a GA review for the article in progress and the reviewer will be asked to decide which label is best, so until then, a "mixed to negative" label should be left. Just felt I should explain. Thoughts? GroundZ3R0 002 06:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah lol you did the talk page thing right. Some people like to answer on their own page and leave ((talkback|GroundZ3R0 002)) on the other users page, but I like just posting back and forth. You will want to put "~~~~" after your text to let people know it was you who put that. As far as the album, I purposely put an equal amount of positive and negative reviews to satisfy WP:BIAS, because having too many positive or negative views don't serve the article. The actual number of reviews on the internet, however, are leaning heavily towards negative. Trust me, I love the album and the band, but I have no choice to lay down the facts. I'm going to try and get Metacritic.com to put the album on there, because they find all the reviews worth putting on (well, they try) and give the album a score overall, then use that score to decide that an album got either "mostly negative", "mixed", "generally postive", or "Universal acclaim". Sorry you're familiar with Metacritic but lots of people aren't. What do you think? GroundZ3R0 002 07:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I do understand. They were false warnings, and I do realize they are wrong. Sorry about that! The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I didn't realize it before. Apologies - I really couldn't tell what was vandalism. It looked like it to me, but I was wrong. I'll look harder next time. Let me make it up for you: The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It's okay, you were trying to be a good editor, but as you're new to Wikipedia, I understand how you might've came to the wrong conclusion. Vandalism is page blanking, removing whole paragraphs for no reason, writing things like YOU SUCK etc. The Light Ball issue wasn't a stab at you or your writing credibility, as I said the article was really well written from what I saw, it just felt as though it belonged in a fan site, not wikipedia. Happy editing! :) TJD2 (talk) 20:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	You deserve this! As a "sorry" gift for our conflict, let me make it up to you by giving you this. The Pikachu Who Dared (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Home-Made Barnstar
		For your hard work on Sebastian Bach, Kicking & Screaming, and Sebastian Bach's Template that you created. Keep up the good work! AmongTheliving66 (talk) 21:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Falling In Reverse. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you are not a mod. FIR is not screamo. This is a fact and I was reverting the genre trolling you were committing, don't act like I did something wrong here when others were reverting your trolling as well. You will most likely be banned from editing if you persist. TJD2 (talk) 23:38, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those genres come from the same source, so you can't remove one without all of them. Please stop reverting to your removal of sourced content, if you do it again you will have violated WP:3RR.Hoponpop69 (talk) 01:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN, consult the talk page. We have discussed this topic in the past and have reached the consensus that they are not i repeat *NOT* screamo. TJD2 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I believe allmusic is an unreliable source for genres, unfortunately it is not viewed as such by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. I've started a dialogue about this here [1] if you want to discuss it.Hoponpop69 (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Escape the Fate. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. GunMetal Angel 22:49, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Guideline in that link says this: "The following uses of this field should be avoided:[reply]

• Association of groups with members' solo careers
• Groups with only one member in common
• Association of producers, managers, etc. (who are themselves acts) with other acts (unless the act essentially belongs to the producer, as in the case of a studio orchestra formed by and working exclusively with a producer)
• One-time collaboration for a single, or on a single song
• Groups that are merely similar GunMetal Angel 22:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Falling In Reverse eligible but not Natural Born Killers? The page has been like this for over a year. TJD2 (talk) 23:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then they should be removed too. And besides I'm just pissed that people aren't getting that a rule should be followed here. Sorry for being hostile and on the side of that, me simply going about to try to enforce a guideline and being called a vandal for it wasn't my strong suit either if that answers your question on my hostility. • GunMetal Angel 23:04, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for that then. I thought you were vandalizing the page when you removed all those bands and coming up with random reasons. Are you going to other pages besides Escape The Fate to fix these acts? Also would Ozzy Osbourne be an associated act for Black Sabbath, because with what you posted pertaining to the guidelines it would appear not. TJD2 (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ozzy Osbourne is a singular person, not a musical group so thus it lists bands and other acts he was associated in appropriately. And on Black Sabbath's end, some of the musicians of that band collaborated under his name later in his career so it actually is listed correctly. It's just under bands like Escape the Fate's manner that only have one member that left and started another band or something as small as that should be avoided from listing and that's all I was trying to do here. • GunMetal Angel 23:13, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding at this point. Again, I'm really sorry for my comments earlier since I was a tad uptight. Also to my surprise, you and I are the same age. • GunMetal Angel 23:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is pretty interesting! It's alright, I know people can get uptight sometimes about their favorite bands. The truth is I don't really like ETF that much anymore since Max left, but try to maintain the neutrality in the subject. I'll try to steer clear of the associated acts section as it just confuses me! I'll leave that to you. Panic Reaper though was a top editor for ETF it seemed, and only had good intentions. I don't know them personally but he/she didn't seem to have the intent to vandalize. Just my two cents. TJD2 (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like Escape the Fate at all. actually. I mean I do live in the town that they formed in (Pahrump), so there's a lot of kids here that do listen to them, but I was just pissed being that me trying to get this guideline out there wasn't working per nobody listening. But I'm glad that's all sorted out now. My favorite bands is things like Opeth, Veil of Maya, The Black Dahlia Murder, Trivium, The Word Alive, Motionless in White… ect. • GunMetal Angel 22:34, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a plug-in from intextual.com installed on your web browser that is inserting extraneous markup while editing. Can you please remove the plug-in or disable it while editing Wikipedia? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what that is but I'll check into it. I apologize. TJD2 (talk) 16:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Did you find the plug-in that was inserting the markup? In looking around some more, it is possible that the plug-in is not from intextual.com itself, but other plug-ins/adware might be installed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It seems to go through without any trouble from markup. I disabled a lot of plugins to find the one that was causing it and it seems to be fine now. TJD2 (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Just out of curiosity, did you figure out which specific plug-in it was? I'd like to know so that I can pass along the specific plug-in to other editors that may have it installed. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. I just disabled multiple ones in hopes that it would stop, and it did. TJD2 (talk) 14:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not a problem. Was just curious. Thanks for fixing the issue. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I reverted your edit on the Call of Duty article. The citation templates are there to standardize article references, but you removed them. bibliomaniac15 21:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I reverted it because the talk page has established that "story arc" is the appropriate way to organize the games as opposed to "series". I'll just change it manually then.TJD2 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Can you kindly explain the repeated undos you keep making to my edits of PlayStation 2, which, among other fixes and cleanup (including someone else's layout edit), corrects vandalism that dates back to November 26? You've done this twice already. 69.181.245.156 (talk) 14:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, I've been monitoring the PS2 page for a few days now because random IPs keep changing it saying the sixth generation of video games is over and the PS2 is completely dead (when it is only dead in Japan). I saw your edit and skimmed over it briefly, and saw random letters in place of a few words. Now that I think about it it might have been coding, but nevertheless I apologize. I reverted my edits back to yours. To avoid this kind of thing in the future, you should get a free account here, as most people are more likely to scrutinize IP addresses and suspect them of vandalism. I forgot to log in once and it was the same for me, people accusing me left and right. Again sorry about the rv, it wasn't a personal attack against you or anything like that. TJD2 (talk) 18:32, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries; thanks for letting me know. I did re-insert some missing non-breaking spaces into the article, which can look like nonsense characters but serve an important purpose when it comes to proper names and other uses. Anyway, I'll give some thought to your advice to set up an account. May simplify a few things for me going forward. Cheers. 69.181.245.156 (talk) 18:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a discussion topic on the talk page for Assassin's Creed so we can discuss whether or not we want "historical" to be a genre as opposed to the year. I agree with you and several other users on this that it should be, but User: Darkwarriorblake does not see eye to eye with us. I'm typing this to let you know we are discussing it there. Midnightstrike3625 (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for letting me know. TJD2 (talk) 23:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First, I removed the template you added to Teresa44's talk page. It's disingenuous of you to warn her for behaviour that you yourself are engaged in.

Second, talk this out on the talk page not in the article. You both have poor references that stated opposite things so perhaps dialogue rather than edit warring is appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a loss as to how to get this across. I don't know if she's actually getting it or if she just doesn't agree and doesn't want to hear it. LazyBastardGuy 00:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much more we can possibly try to discuss with her...I think one of us should report her, and as I've only done that once I'm not exactly familiar with the process.TJD2 (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I feel comfortable doing that... I'm definitely going on wikibreak for sure after I post this, but I am monitoring the situation even in spite of that and was only a bit mad that she had done this, and I think that in the long run blanking her talk page is the most innocuous thing she can do... If she tries to edit the page tendentiously again, then I'd report her, but again I'm taking off so I won't be there. At this point we can only wait to see what she does next. If normal communication doesn't seem to be working, then we can take it up at WP:ANI. But that should be a last resort - we should exhaust every possible means of contact first. LazyBastardGuy 07:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to calm down a bit and be willing to budge with whatever the available material says. Bottom line is that Loudwire post kinda sorta implies that he is the new singer, and I agree, we need (or at least would greatly prefer) something better, but I think for now we can reach a compromise. I think it's obvious the way things are going he'll become the new singer, but much of what Neil says in the blog is just speculating on a future time, which means that some of it (including the bit about recording) hasn't come to pass yet. Clearly they're kind of planning on it, but their plans could change for one reason or another... Maybe we need to reach a compromise as to what to say about it in the article here on Wikipedia. LazyBastardGuy 04:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The edits made were not using users as "sources" in the sense that they are a source for reliable information on the game. This is the reason Wikipedia prevents user-generated source material. They ARE, however, a reliable source of their own opinion. As such, noting a widespread user dissatisfaction is entirely worth recording. Please use the talk page instead of removing edits in the future, prior to Wikipedia user discussion.

Blake - Please sign your posts by putting four tildes (~) after your message. Also games like Mass Effect 3 and Call Of Duty MW3 had falsified user reviews done on a massive scale to bring down the user score purposely. Similarly Day 1 Garry's Incident for PC saw developers signing on posing as Metacritic reviewers to bring the score up. Trust me, I thought the same as you for MW3 back in the day but I was referred to a policy by Wikipedia itself that user reviews are not reliable sources for these very reasons. Thank you. TJD2 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Don't Say No page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem man. I figured I could improve it. So I did. Happy to help. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 04:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss changes like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why labelling him a conspiracy theorist is an attempt to smear him when here have been several articles that talk about Adam's invovement in and advocacy of Gamergate (i.e. https://www.syfy.com/syfywire/things-getting-heated-over-adam-baldwins-attendance-australian-con-supanova, https://www.vulture.com/2014/10/why-you-should-care-about-gamergate.html). Even the article itself bring up his involvement in Gamergate.Razzamatazz Buckshank (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It brings up his opinion on it, but because he believes Gamergate was about ethics in journalism does not make him a blanket conspiracy theorist. The article makes NO mention of conspiracy theories directly (nor should it). Adam Baldwin is an actor first and foremost. It's not like he is spouting QAnon or Russiagate conspiracies. I say it's an attempt to smear Baldwin because the term "conspiracy theorist" is often haphazardly applied to anyone with a different opinion from the one using the term. Especially in this instance when everything he said could be choked up to his own opinions or misconceptions. TJD2 (talk) 17:42, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Also, the term "conspiracy" does not even appear once in the article you listed. Gamergate as a conspiracy is also very much disputed. One side believes it was about sexism, misogyny, etc. while the other side believes it was about addressing ethics in journalism. Neither side is conspiracy based - and that is objective fact. Thank you for contacting me to discuss. TJD2 (talk) 17:45, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Tremonti Marching in Time.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Freedom Rock album cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying 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. IceWelder [✉] 09:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]