User talk:Thrasher1988

November 2015

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Hatebreed, 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. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 09:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't police music pages if you are not even familiar with the basic characteristics of the band and their sound. It's like openly and widely sourcing that Linkin Park's early work draws from and incorporates elements of both hip hop and hard rock/heavy metal, but yet refuse to list their genre as "rap metal" for no reason other than that no journalist explicitly calls them that, instead calling them "nu metal" (which is also correct). There are a number of reasons and politics why some labels are used by media people and at certain times periods and for certain audiences, but that never changes the definitional accuracy.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Hatebreed, you may be blocked from editing. Also note that alling the band crossover thrash based solely on interpretation (with no actual sources) would be an original research. The reliable sources that I've seen for now only point out it as an influence. We need actual third party independent sources from actual music reviewers for this. Actually researching and looking for sources (rather than just reverting and reverting) would be more beneficial for the article, wouldn't it? Myxomatosis57 (talk) 15:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as a clear case of the pot calling the kettle black. So you policing pages of music bands and genres of which you are clearly unfamiliar and ill-informed is not disruptive editing? So we're just going to ignore what I just said about definitional accuracy and terminological fashions in the media across time? Got it. Again, crossover thrash is by definition a hardcore band that draws from and incorporates thrash guitar riffs. This is what Hatebreed does; it's not my interpretation. I am merely matching a band's sound with the definitional term for it, and both of those components are well sourced throughout the page, including in the first three sentences alone. Have you ever listened to Hatebreed? Where is this obtuse attitude coming from?

Please make yourself more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines before editing, most particularly Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. (Also please sign your posts with putting ~~~~ at the end.) You're also welcomed to the talk page for discussing this genre issue. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I am familiar with it. It isn't original research and it is a generally neutral point of view. I have since the beginning of this nonsense based my actions on the definition of the subgenre of crossover thrash. And I am/have used the talk page, and gave you a citation in that. Are you honestly looking for someone to use the phrase "crossover thrash" explicitly, and nothing else even if they say (as many citations have) that they incorporate both hardcore and thrash/metal sounds? If so, then you have no business commenting on let alone policing this page because you don't even know what you're talking about. Saying a ball is a "spherical object" does not constitute original research if one possesses even a modicum of a brain cell. Hardcore bands that play thrash riffs are crossover thrash. This really is that simple.Thrasher1988 (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hatebreed's genre is definitely not common knowledge. (See Wikipedia:Common knowledge) It is not something like "New York City is located in the United States" or "There are seven days in a week" and such a comparison is on a ridiculous level, especially when this crossover thrash claim is largely uncited, with barely any mention on any sort of music publishings and media. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 22:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And here you go misrepresenting me and trying to put words in my mouth. What I said was that this was a matter of definitions. The definition of crossover thrash is easily available (assuming you have not yet changed it and deleted/ignored the citations from that as well). There are numerous citations throughout the Hatebreed page that clearly establish that the band meets the definition of crossover thrash. If you were actually competent in your policing you would know this. Now since you clearly can't understand it when someone tries to guide you through the logical thought process of how 2+1=3 here are some links that actually do state that Hatebreed is a crossover thrash band (which was plainly obvious anyway). Now do us all a favor and completely restore the Hatebreed page to how it was before you butchered it, and then go ahead and never edit another heavy music page ever again. At the very least in the future you could tag things and request a citation if you have a question rather than merely unilaterally rewriting entire sections of a band page to suit your own twisted ideological needs. http://www.ranker.com/list/crossover-thrash-bands-and-musicians/reference http://metaldescent.com/album-review-hatebreed-the-divinity-of-purpose/ Thrasher1988 (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Thrasher1988. Thank you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]