Paint Old Street Black

First of all welcome. I feel you have improved the 30 Seconds to Mars (album) page greatly (I made an attempt at extending it slightly a while back). I just wanted to explain my reason for re-adding the reviews. The Q review, as you stated you can read the review from from Metacritic and while it says "40" Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites states it has a 5-star scale? I added the Allmusic review because while it doesnt give a review it did give a rating of the album, though that would be it's only use. While the Metacritic score is only based on 4 reviews (as you clarified in the Reception section) it can still be included in the table in my opinion. Usually I would just revert the changes however I felt it best to discuss them first. (HrZ (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC))

First of all thanks. I think you're right for Q, but Allmusic doesn't review the album, so I think that its rating should not be added, or I'm wrong?--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I agree with you there, no point adding the rating for Allmusic if there is no review to back it. So you would have no problems with me adding the Q rating back? (HrZ (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC))

Done.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 16:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BADCHARTS

Please do not add the Latvian Airplay Top chart, or any other chart listed at WP:BADCHARTS, to any Wikipedia articles. Ringphone charts, such as the Portuguese chart, are also inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 18:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I didn't know about these bad charts. However I re-added good charts (UK Singles Chart).--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 18:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Removed it again. Zobbel doesn't meet WP:RS. There are no general archives that source UK positions below 100. You also restored the Latvian material, which I will assume was a simple error on your part.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it's my mistake.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Controversial edits without discussion

Good night. Please copy the source of contentious edits, and especially before changing partitions on which the parties reached an agreement after a conflict, ask on the talk page. Otherwise it will be rolled back as a disregard for the opinion of other participants and even the vandalism, given that you have removed several sources Mistery Spectre (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

And, by the way sorry - this is anonymous . I still can not get used that you have the vandalism often goes unnoticed), although it may be just my luck Mistery Spectre (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I remember that you added genres without discussion. It has already been said why the sources you used aren't good. Jon O'Brien from Allmusic doesn't mention post grunge in its review. The source from The Times is a live review (not an album review) and its writer, Lisa Verrico, doesn't mention any song of the band's debut. The prog metal is confirmed by three sources: Allmusic ("11 tracks are packed full of heavy, riff-laden guitars, prog metal beats, and Hollywood star Jared Leto's soaring vocals and sci-fi lyrics, making it one of the more convincing actor-turned-rock star efforts"), E! ("it's probably his saving grace that few will recognize the former Jordan Catalano from My So-Called Life as the lead screamer in this Tool-ish progressive metal band") and Alternative Press ("The band are made of sterner stuff, with their prog-metal foundation enhanced by an unexpectedly powerful sense of melody"). You recently removed the last two sources. Why? Have you a reason? If you think these sources are unreliable, you have to explain why on the talk page. I see that HrZ said to you the same thing on your the talk page. For any vandalism, I don't know what you mean. Hope I have explained it well.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

On your lengthy references to "progressive rhythms" more authority than a direct indication of the genre in the source graph genre? That I can not understand. Want to add more sources on the prog, but please do not delete the other genres. Otherwise, it seems that there is some sort of a singular goal to present this album as progressive metal and nothing else. At the same time with the user we have achieved at least some consensus, you do come and demolished everything. Is that some sort of secret directive to file this album just as progressive and cutting all references to other genres?) Before the next pullback, I beg you to continue the discussion at least here Mistery Spectre (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have to stop to add those sources. The sources that you add are bogus. I and others have already explained why. If you want to add post grunge or hard rock you must add sources related to this album (not a live review or an AMG style). There is a consensus to keep prog metal and remove the sources that you constantly add. Better than that I can't explain. If you don't understand you mustn't add wrong content.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

where this consensus, eh? Talk page article almost empty. And I'm slightly hard for that opening the specified genre is fake, and casually mentioned this moment we have been the main source. And do not try to squeeze my war update, unless I'll deal in this game with the sources I will not go Mistery Spectre (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 16:42, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

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).

Paint Old Street Black (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I explained to the other user why the sources he uses aren't good. I discussed with him (see my and his talk page), but he ignored the discussions. He added bogus sources and I've only removed them.Paint Old Street Black (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clearly edit-warring. Being right doesn't matter. Please read WP:3RR. —Kww(talk) 16:58, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

Ok, but I have a question: in this situation what should I do?--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Generally, take it to the talk page, and remember that it really isn't that important for such a trivial issue as the genre field in an infobox to get corrected immediately. If it becomes a dispute that cannot be resolved, we have dispute resolution procedures (see WP:DR).—Kww(talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--Paint Old Street Black (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for block evasion, per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ItHysteria. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

—Kww(talk) 23:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)