User talk:Tjdrum2000

Welcome!

Hello, Tjdrum2000, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tjdrum2000, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Tjdrum2000! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Doctree (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Radiohead

Yo. You've probably noticed that I have now reverted several extensive edits you made to Radiohead articles.

I promise it's nothing personal. But your edits frequently introduce grammatical errors, unnecessary words, overlinking, and other problems. For example, from your recent edits to the Kid A article:

"it was later named as one of the best albums of the year" - both "later" and "as" are completely unnecessary. We know it wasn't named one of the best albums of the year before it was released.
"the Rolling Stone " - the magazine is named Rolling Stone, not the Rolling Stone.
"Radiohead recorded the album under the supervision of co-producer Nigel Godrich" - Godrich didn't "supervise" the album. He produced it.
"Radiohead minimised their involvement in the album's marketing, conducting few interviews or photoshoots in the process." - "in the process" adds no information and is technically wrong; they did not conduct few interviews or photoshoots in the process of minimising their involvement; their involvement was minimised as a result of their few interviews and photoshoots.
"the music service Napster" - Napster was not a music service. It was a peer-to-peer filesharing service. It is already wikilinked and introduced in the same paragraph ("the peer-to-peer service Napster").

Etc.

I thought I should explain the reverts here, since you seem to be continually reinstating them. It would be great if, instead of just adding them back, you could take your suggestions to the Talk page of each article. Thanks. Popcornduff (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I totally understand. I'd just like to add to the article so it says at the beginning "by Parlophone Records internationally and a day later by Capitol Records in the United States" so there's no confusion, if that's okay. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... you seem to have done it again...

A link to a JPG image is not a reliable source. Plus it doesn't actually support the claim you're making (it doesn't say when it was released in various territories).
"Kid A initially divided many critics" - this means that many critics were individually divided. Like they were cut in half or something.
"ranked Kid A at number 67" - as I said before, "at" is not necessary for this construction.
"no clear deadline" - the source says they had no deadline; why did you change it to "no clear deadline"?
"Yorke said, "I think we've all been envious about the way Björk has been able to reinvent music."" - Yorke didn't say this. Ed O'Brien said this.

Here's my suggestion, for now. The information about the different release dates is relevant, so try to find a reliable source that gives the two separate days. Popcornduff (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Radiohead... again

OK, look, this is getting silly. I'm having to revert you several times a day. That's not fun for either of us, and it makes me feel like some kind of Wikipedia supervillain. The mistakes you keep making are:

Making claims that aren't sourced; for example saying OK Computer is "widely considered to be Radiohead's greatest album". This isn't sourced and what's more as it's a very grand claim you will need MULTIPLE, GREAT sources to back it up. (Note that the same article also says that OKC is considered one of the best albums of all time and has multiple sources saying so.)
Putting "citation needed" tags on claims that ARE sourced. As per MOS:LEAD, leads do not need to contain citations when they are cited in the body of the article itself, except in cases where claims may be contentious (such as OKC being one of the best albums of the 90s etc).
Broken wikicode and formatting
Factual errors. For example, Donwood and Godrich have both worked with Radiohead since 1994, not 1997.
Irrelevant detail. "Radiohead (formerly known as On a Friday)" - the band were never commercially known as On a Friday so this is not worth mentioning in the first sentence.
Bad writing. You make sentences long and complicated by adding unnecessary words and clauses. For example, your changed "change in direction" to "change in musical direction", as if this needed clarifying. Or this sentence: "The option of downloading the album for free has been frequently attributed to this discussion." An unjustified use of passive voice. Your recent change to the Radiohead lead expanded the lead beyond the Wikipedia recommendations for lead length (no more than four paragraphs).

I don't mean to be rude, as you're making these edits in good faith. But you're making major changes to articles that have achieved Good Article and even Featured Article status when you don't seem to have enough experience of prose writing or a good understanding of Wikipedia policy. Please go gently. Popcornduff (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry. I thought I knew what I was doing. And by the way, the words "incorporating influences from genres such as 20th century classical music, krautrock and jazz" on the Kid A article had no sources cited for them whatsoever, so I put a citation needed notice on it. I don't feel like I've been doing anything wrong. I thought I was sure that I was making some pages better in terms of writing, but apparently it's not necessarily "better" by YOUR standards. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Influences are cited extensively in the article:

- "Radiohead chose the orchestra as they had performed pieces by Penderecki and Messiaen.[1]"
- "Jonny Greenwood's use of the ondes Martenot on this and several other Kid A songs was inspired by Olivier Messiaen, who popularised the early electronic instrument and was one of Greenwood's teenage heroes.[1]"
- "Kid A is influenced by 1990s IDM artists Autechre and Aphex Twin,[1] along with others on Warp Records;[2] ... by 1970s Krautrock bands such as Can,[2] Faust and Neu!;[8] and by the jazz of Charles Mingus,[9] Alice Coltrane and Miles Davis.[10]"
- "In November 1999,[1] Radiohead recorded a brass section inspired by the "organised chaos" of Town Hall Concert by the jazz musician Charles Mingus. Yorke and Greenwood directed the musicians to sound like a "traffic jam"; according to Yorke, he jumped up and down so much during his conducting that he broke his foot.[2]"

These are not "my standards", but Wikipedia policy. Popcornduff (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Popcornduff's message, please read the linked items in the welcome notice I've added at the top of this page. They will help you avoid problems through editing Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 18:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to the OK Computer article.

Hi there. I've reverted your changes to the OK Computer article's lead. This time, I wanted to give voice to the reasons that support the present draft so that you understand where I'm coming from. Please read what I've written here and respond with any objections and your rationale, so we can constructively work through any differences, before altering the article's lead. Thank you. —Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Major changes to any infobox and/or lead section requires discussion and consensus, please cease and desist and start discussing your changes before hand. Mlpearc (open channel) 01:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But all I was doing was smoothing them out by adding an hlist to them. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits

Tjdrum2000 I see you removed my last notice on your edits, however you still don't use wp:edit summary, especially while editing via mobile. Do you need assistance/help with it? I can show you step-by-step how to do it, as you should explain in edit summary what you're doing in each edit. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 08:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using it most of the time, I guess. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You used an edits summary only twice in the last 50 edits. That is not "most of the time".--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 01:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tjdrum2000, please also note that using a very generic description like Fixed or Restructured isn't OK. Some of your newest contributions are fine, but always try to describe what is fixed or restructured in your edit. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 19:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tjdrum2000: You still make lots of edits without leaving the edit summary. Please take care about it. --Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 23:51, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Tay (bot), you may be blocked from editing. Again, stop your vandalism/test edits and don't remove content without any explanation. Rezonansowy_akaRezy (talk | contribs) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't vandalizing anything. I was trying to make it better. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have to have sources for everything you add to Wikipedia or somebody is going to revert what you add. If you need any help in deciding whether you are contributing to or disturbing the encyclopedia, you can ask for help at many places on this website. No hard feelings; I am sure you are doing your best. Sincerely. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Arkhaminsanity. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Floral Shoppe have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Arkhaminsanity (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Hello, I'm Justeditingtoday. I noticed that you recently removed some content from The Dark Knight (film) 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 the 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. Justeditingtoday (talk) 01:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You removed most of the article at Prometheus (2012 film) with this edit. Don't worry, I've restored it. I've also noticed you've been making mass changes to dozens of film articles in a very short time span. I would suggest slowing down. Some of these edits may be viewed as controversial, so it would be best to wait a bit to see if they are accepted before moving onto more and making the same kind of changes. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, please stop adding 3D to the opening sentence in multiple film articles. Keep in mind that this is just one format the film is available in, so it should be mentioned alongside the other formats. Most film articles have this mentioned already further down in the lead, usually the last paragraph. It is becoming very tedious to follow behind and fix your edits. Please slow down and read your notices! --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please don't replace sourced content, such as a Rotten Tomatoes consensus or score, with your own interpretation of whether the film received "negative reviews" or "positive reviews". This would need to be explicitly sourced. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Predators (film). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please do not add your own interpretation of review aggregators, such as labeling a reception as "mixed to positive". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Zathura US Poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Zathura US Poster.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. Steel1943 (talk) 17:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Roses (The Chainsmokers song), you may be blocked from editing. Please stop with the persistent changes to genres, especially with unreliable sources. Ss112 14:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sorry. I didn't know the sources that I used were unreliable. I only looked at the list of unreliable sources and made sure to avoid those when finding sources. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at New York City (The Chainsmokers song). Stop changing genres and being disruptive over which ones to include because you disagree. Ss112 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the edits proclaiming everywhere Sony Music is not a label (as I'm sure many users disagree with you, and you've been reverted by more users than just me), and please avoid fighting over genres. This is the behaviour of a genre warrior and you may find yourself blocked. Also, my talk page is not the place to discuss what you think EDM and Sony Music are. Those affect more than just me, and one user's talk page is not the appropriate forum for your proposed broad changes to the multitude of pages on Wikipedia that list Sony as a label or EDM as a genre. Until you have multiple users who have reached a clear consensus on the respective talk pages, I think it's best you step away from editing genres or labels. This is fast becoming disruptive. Ss112 23:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at /2016ALBUM/. Ss112 02:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interscope

A paragraph is a group of closely related sentences that develop a central idea. There are five paragraphs in the lead section of the Interscope article because they express five distinct ideas. There's no need to combine them. JSFarman (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually, WP:LEAD says that "as a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate". So I'm pretty sure they should stay the way I put them as four paragraphs, because that's the maximum number of paragraphs for the lead as WP:LEAD says. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The problem for me was about combining the first and second paragraphs. I moved the statement re: Iovine/Janick to the 2nd paragraph - it's now four paragraphs and we can both rejoice.JSFarman (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I am having a difficult time seeing your behavior as anything other than thumbing your nose at all of the editors who have tried to engage with you and get you to slow down, especially where you have been unilaterally changing genres. If this continues your next block is likely to be a long term one. Please stop, and discuss with other editors before you make these kinds of changes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset and extended your block for block evasion. I've also range blocked your IP for a month. Your block will now expire on June 20, 2017. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've now blocked two more obvious IP socks. Given your extensive block evasion, I've blocked you indefinitely. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, okay? Can I please be unblocked on the original time (June 21/27)? I promise I won't try to be disruptive as I apparently was. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You will need to file an unblock request which is explained in my block notice above. However I have to tell you that socking is considered a very serious no no around here and any unblock request so soon is unlikely to be approved. Your best bet, assuming you are serious in your desire to contribute here, would be to wait six months and then request a standard offer. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tjdrum2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't mean to cause any trouble. I promise if I get unblocked sooner or sometime later that I'll try to be as responsible and civilized in editing than I was before. I will try to find reliable sources for edits, and will also try to talk about edits on talk pages. I'm sorry again. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's going to take more than that, I'm afraid. If this block was just for the disruption then I might see my way to accepting this appeal, but the persistent block evasion only goes to demonstrate your utter disregard for this site's policies and processes. It's far from clear that you can be trusted here, and until you can convince us that you can be, you will remain blocked. Yunshui ^雲 _水 15:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Tjdrum2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't mean to cause any trouble, so I'll stop trying to evade my blocks if I'm unblocked. I promise I'll stop doing so, I really do. I hope you can forgive me. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"I'll stop trying to evade my blocks if I'm unblocked" - seriously? That's a non-promise. Try the standard offer. Huon (talk) 00:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

New unblock request

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

Tjdrum2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm sorry for doing what got me blocked in the first place. I guess I was acting like a genre warrior and didn't realize it. If I'm unblocked, I'll try my very, very best not to behave in that way. The only intentions I have on Wikipedia are to contribute information on articles about stuff either I like or am interested in. I was acting childish when I kept on edit warring and trying to evade my blocks even after I was blocked. I wasn't thinking about the consequences. I'm sorry, and I promise that if I'm unblocked I'll try to be civilized as possible when trying to contribute to Wikipedia. I hope you can forgive me. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

You are being conditionally unblocked per WP:ROPE and your agreement to a topic ban. Specifically you are prohibited from editing on any music related articles or discussions broadly construed, including talk pages and RfCs for one year from this date (expiring on June 23 2018). You are free to edit elsewhere provided you do so in a constructive and very importantly, non-disruptive manner. Further while you are free to remove or archive other discussions and notices on your talk page as you see fit, this unblock notice is not to be removed or altered for one year from this date. Any breach of the above conditions may result in your being reblocked indefinitely and per ROPE it is unlikely that any future unblock requests would be entertained. Please edit carefully. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing Admin: As the original blocking admin, I have no objection to commuting the indef to something shorter on the basis of WP:ROPE. However I will defer to your judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @NinjaRobotPirate: for your thoughts. (I think we turned the original ping into a clusterbleep.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't two recent unblock requests being denied enough? As the user who warned this user over and over for their unexplained changes to genres, unnecessary changes to infoboxes, restructuring leads for no apparent reason, and returning to the same articles days later and doing the same things without explanation, this request appears disingenuous. There was hardly any addition on information on this user's part. In fact, I never saw them contribute so much as a reference. This user continues to pretend as if unsourced changes to genres is the only thing I reported them for, and that is not true. They also had some strange ideas about what was and what was not a record label and even after being notified that consensus needed to be reached on contentious issues where we attempt to redefine things, continued right on with the WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT behaviour. I don't know how many IPs they used to evade their block (Does anybody?), but they knew this was wrong and even if it was for a different matter, were already given a second chance after their original block. Ultimately, the decision is not up to me and others may be more forgiving; I'm just weighing in. Ss112 18:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ss112, but I guess there's always room for WP:LASTCHANCE if someone were willing to grant it. I think a mentor could help with the issues raised by Ss112. A wise man once told me that if you understand a rule, you can consciously choose to break it with impunity; however, if you don't understand the rule, you're doomed to forever break it in ways that are perceived as incompetent or disruptive. He was talking about poetic license, but I think it applies to Wikipedia, too. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I don't want to be rude here, but it's been two weeks since I last submitted this request and I'm starting to get a little bit tired of waiting for a response. No offense to anyone here, though. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 01:08, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be prepared to agree to a topic ban from music related articles and discussions for one year as a condition for being unblocked? -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Me? Tjdrum2000 (talk) 15:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm pretty sure your the only one here asking to be unblocked. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, I was just making sure. And yes, I think I would be willing to wait a year to edit on music-related articles and talk pages again, as long as I'm able to edit on anything other than that. You know, in a civilized way. Tjdrum2000 (talk) 16:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]