User talk:Noreplyhaha

I am a regular editor of every Fall Out Boy related page, often being the predominant editor of those articles since 2010. Among my work I have helped expand Infinity on High to Good-article status, as well as cleaning up and adding to every FOB page. I like making bands' pages more informative for readers. Leave a message below if you want to grab my attention. @SwiftStump on Twitter.

• Wrote most of PAX AM Days.
• Co-wrote Infinity on High to Good Article status.
• Created and wrote Truant Wave, Soul Punk and "This City".
• Started a bunch of other pages.
• Used the current information on pages to further develop band articles including Simple Plan and The Cab.
• Currently focusing on the newest Fall Out Boy releases including American Beauty/American Psycho and "Uma Thurman".

I've spent countless hours on FOB pages, it's pretty awesome that when people read the page they're reading my work! I also help improve other band articles. Don't ask why I don't have a user page.

Amazing bands and artists I enjoy: Fall Out Boy, The Offspring, The Amity Affliction, A Day To Remember, New Found Glory, Tonight Alive, Taylor Swift, Paramore, All Time Low, Green Day, Panic! At The Disco, blink-182, Simple Plan, Sienna Skies, Good Charlotte, You Me At Six, The All-American Rejects, We Are the In Crowd, Hey Monday, Cassadee Pope, The Cab, Spitalfield, The Veronicas, Yellowcard, Chunk! No, Captain Chunk, Cobra Starship, Billy Talent, Pierce The Veil, Sleeping With Sirens, The Damned Things, Sum 41, My Chemical Romance. Soul Punk is great.

I think I'm done with it...it's unlikely I can find too many more reputable sources for the article. Just for further reference, MTV News has a TON of information about bands if you're looking to improve any article. They've followed FOB from shortly before Take This to Your Grave, and they are a reputable source. To improve the other FOB pages, I suggest we could all scour MTV News for FOB articles. However, I think I'm done with FOB for right now. Thardin12 (talk)

Possible. You could nominate it. A lot of the sources need to be cleaned up (aside from the new ones), and some should even be removed, as they're not "reputable" by Wikipedia standards (I've been through this numerous times before...) The "Singles" section should probably be under "Release", and I'd name it "Release and promotion". And we don't need a "Guest artists" section. Most articles today just credit the artist in smaller text beside the song titles on the track listing. Plus, they're all listed under "Personnel" and some are even discussed in "Recording". But, yes, it could be GA-worthy. Just fix, first and foremost, the sources - they're crazy about that now.

It doesn't matter what you think is "traditionally done", if anything vocals are the least important part of music and even here WP:MUSIC says to sort the members at the time of their joining. Your other disruptions also include incorrectly capitalizing phrases which is just adding grammar errors, removal of categories and addition of spamlinks. Can you just not do this? Eventually it's going to be considered vandalism if you keep it up. Thanks. • GunMetal Angel 21:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticking my old reply here for future reference.Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I certainly do not believe that "vocals are the least important part of music" as the vocalist defines the song. Would it be the same if Keith Buckley sang a Fall Out Boy song? In addition, if the "music" is so important, it's Fall Out Boy's lead vocalist Patrick Stump that also composes the music. I have read through your Wikipedia:Notability (music) excuse twice but have not seen anywhere that says to "sort the members at the time of their joining." "Your other disruptions also include..." Excuse me, but I have contributed A LOT to all the Fall Out Boy pages, including all the albums and singles, and the band members; I have spent countless hours over a year working on them. The pages would not be in their state today and would also have many formatting errors if it weren't for my significant contributions, so don't you tell me about "disruptions"! Unless you're going to do a better job than me then stay quiet please. Noreplyhaha (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)"

Thanks for you note. It looks like you do understand what I am doing. Because Category:Simple Plan albums is a child category to Category:Pop punk albums, there is no need to categorize the individual albums as pop punk albums. I am also adding Category:Pop punk albums to other artist's albums categories if it isn't there if all their albums are categorized as pop punk albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 05:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As much as you may have liked it, unfortunately, it's just really unprofessional and unnecessary. --Freaky Face Films (talk) 21:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the article to say "All songs written, composed, produced, and performed by Patrick Stump." under tracklisting, I believe this is both appropriate and professional for the article. --Freaky Face Films (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it's not in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Your modification is very appropriate. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Glad we figured this out :D Stump forever! I actually had the pleasure of meeting him in person last month during one of his tour dates. Such a kick-ass guy, really. Haha --Freaky Face Films (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're so lucky; his shows are the best thing! Are you getting a Soul Punk preorder? Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it is a shame that Soul Punk's peer review failed to gain any attention from assessors. Assuming you start high school on October 10 you will not be able to contribute to the reception, both critical and sales. So how about we collaborate? never done a task on wikipedia this ambitious, I mainly revert vandalism and take care of pages that dont get edited, but working to get Soul Punk to a high class sounds like a nice idea. As I brush through it now i can see some points where a sections can be created. Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My last year of high school starts around then, yes. I'd sure like to collaborate a bit and see how much we can do (I helped get Infinity on High from C-grade to Good Article but most of the work was done by another writer not me; and I've done extensive work on everything Fall Out Boy). For Soul Punk's commercial reception I'll pop in and work on it, I wouldn't ever want to miss its sales and charting. I won't be doing anything much for the critical reception though, also I've never written a critical response section. The current article has a lead with heaps packed into it as it's informative but not all mentioned in the body. The "Background" is just a History section, a fairly complete timeline of events since the beginning of January 2010 and severely lacks things like what Stump says of the album, lyrics, how it's his musical style and how FOB restricted it. There's also so much on the internet about the meaning behind some individual Soul Punk songs that Stump has explained. I've got some great resources bookmarked over two years that I never got to add to the article because it turned into a History thing without sections so things like Stump's ambition, lyrics, scrapping the finished album in 2010 and starting again, didn't fit in the page. I really want Soul Punk to be a high class article, Patrick Stump deserves it so much, but if I never contributed, the page would be little more than a lead and a tracklisting... A great news source is on brue.tumblr.com and it captures heaps of press-interviews and opinions. I'm currently reading an interview Stump did with AbsolutePunk and I have a feeling it's the most informative interview I'll read so far. Given that, there's a wealth of coverage, enough for a Feature Article but I won't get anywhere near there, I wish! Noreplyhaha (talk) 15:49, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the PR for SOul Punk Wikipedia:Peer review/Soul Punk/archive1. Sorry it took so long, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 19:00, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your contributions to 21. But please stop removing the genres from the article info-box. Although you don't think that the album deals with alternative or R&B, other official sources (such as metacritic and Allmusic) list these styles/genres. Thanks. And if you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Orane (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the page and see that "alternative rock" and indie rock have been long removed from that page (by other users). So much for people reverting my correct removal of those genres at the time. Anyway, I'm right and if alternative rock was still on the page that would be absurd. Hah, what now?! Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I loved that photo of Patrick you took at, I believe, his Leno appearance, whatever happened to getting the copyrights and what not sorted out so that his Wiki article could use it? Being that it is your own work, I don't see why they denied it, if that's what went on. So yeah, just wanted to follow-up on that :/

Thanks!--TapDatApp (talk) 05:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this until now, oops. I don't understand why they denied it. I used the Wiki uploader with all the copyrights good to go but they removed it...I don't understand why. Maybe I could try once more. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for helping so significantly with everything Fall Out Boy-related on Wikipedia! I've learned things about the band that I had no idea about through some of your more detailed edits. I sincerely appreciate it :) TapDatApp (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for appreciating my efforts :) Noreplyhaha (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir or Madam, whilst you are still in your senior year of high school, I have already finished my second year of university. I would just like to correct you and say that if you may check the back of the following Fall Out Boy albums From Under the Cork Tree, Live in Phoenix, Infinity on High and especially Folie à Deux you will notice the following label's Island , Decaydance, and Fueled By Ramen have their logo's plastered on the bottom right corner. Also if you would please be so kind as to check the official the Decaydance website and click on the artist page you will notice Fall Out Boy on the top right corner. For more conformation you may watch VersaEmerge's Top 5 Fueled By Ramen Releases and notice Infinity on High is listed and on Decaydance's Discography on their website you will see Infinity on High was released through FBR along with Mercury Records in the UK. It is clear to me that you did not do your homework and check all possible sources, as far as genres go you will have to listen to Cork Tree again and decipher if it really is Pop rock (Baby, trust me it's not pop rock, FOB's my favourite band). I will not argue with you any longer and I will not make any changes until you have seen the error of your ways. P.S You may not have known this but Decaydance is Pete Wentz's label created in 2004, you should read up on it more. LittleRedRiddingHoodJR (talk ) 20:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your civilised post and understand your edits were in good will. Just so you know, Fall Out Boy is also my favourite band and they have been for five years, I'll also have you know that I wrote most of the content on the main band page and on all their albums and singles. I also edited everything, well, I'm the FOB knowledge base or something. Yes, Fueled By Ramen and Decaydance are on the back of the CDs and Live In Phoenix (I own almost all of them) but they were just put on there; Decaydance was just because of Pete, and Fueled By Ramen was tagged for courtesy as the band legally left the label after Take This to Your Grave. In legal dealing, it is only Island. You'll see under the logos that the albums are distributed by Island/Universal and is solely copyrighted by Island Records. However, you don't have to take my word, though if Fall Out Boy is your favourite band also, you would appreciate Patrick Stump and what he had to say on the matter as I asked him on Twitter last year, and his reply. I'll post a screen shot about how FOB isn't on FBR/DD. Of course I know that Decaydance is Pete's label... Also, Pop rock isn't a completely specific genre; I don't mean pop rock as in music styles like We The Kings or Maroon 5, just so you know. "Pop rock" also does not mean "pop music or rock music," I'm just clarifying that with you. Oh, I haven't done my "homework"? It looks like you didn't realise I wrote All their pages on Wikipedia. Noreplyhaha (talk) 12:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies Ms., I did not mean to offend you in anyway. I've become so competitive lately that I sometimes I forget how much my words can hurt others. Regardless I realize that you are truly the bigger Fall Out Boy fan, no matter how much it may pain me to admit it and you are also a talented good writer. I'm really trying hard to be subtle and not give you a speech because I know that’s the last thing you want to hear from some 20 year old man who lives with a bunch of loud and obnoxious roommates. Otherwise I would really like to kiss and make up, are you up for it? (From one FOB fan to another). LittleRedRiddingHoodJR (talk ) 00:30, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to respond, so: thanks. You're a FOB fan too, just enjoy the music and not compete to be the "bigger" fan. Also, I'm a guy so I could do without the kiss haha. Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey im that guy who edited out the pop rock on your fall out boy pages. im totally sorry about that cause i didnt realize that you guys had settled on a consensus, i was just trying to edit out what i thought wasnt entirely true, but thats not the only reason why im here. theres this user called frignator whos saying we cant use allmusic as a source, and he keeps changing those too albums genre to pop rock. In fcat he deletes any other genres with valid citations. All i want is for three cheers for sweet revenge to say alternative rock and post-hardcore and for black parade to just say alternative rock, but this guy simply overstepping his boundaries as a user and stopped anyone from doing that. it strikes me as odd because allmusic has always been an accepted source on wikipedia and he claims pop rock is the genre even though allmusic uses that genre for every rock album and the genres listed under styles are used on almost every wikipedia music page. You're very well respected on this site and i really respect what you've done on the fall out boy pages (i mean maintaining those pages with a fanbase like that must be really hard work) and i was wondering if you can help sort this out. this guy is acting way out of line, i just want the my chemical romances genre to be properly represented and him claiming allmusic isnt a source is completly unprecendented.

Thank you very much and by the way im still sorry about disrupting those fall out boy pages before — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.34 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

72.89.197.34, you realize I can read this, right? Simply by clicking on your IP address I can see everything you've edited. That said, first of all, Allmusic is cited. The genres listed there are the ones in the infobox. I have never, I repeat, never intentionally deleted a genre with a valid citation. Valid citations are the point. Anything else is someone's personal opinion skewing the article and is against Wikipedia policy. Noreplyhaha, I respect your willingness to help an anonymous editor, but I'd advise you to stay out of 72.89.197.34's unsourced genre warring in the future, and I'd advise 72.89.197.34 to stop attempting to replace sourced content with unsourced opinion. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 18:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Friginator the problem is every other album on wikipedia allows styles to mean genre when it comes to allmusic, i don't see why styles can't mean genre when it clearly means that and every other wikipedia page allows it, it just seems like your intentionally misreading it. Its been commonly accepted as a valid citation on many pages and how don't see how you can just swoop in and say that that's not okay to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.197.34 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah this is the anonymous user from before, i always forget my password so i sometimes forget to log in, but i hate to keep pestering but friginators changing the songs genres to pop/rock now, Even though under styles it will clearly say post-hardcore and alternative rock, his tunnel vision esque view of citations somehow prevents him from accepting these changes just because it does not explicitly call itself genre. There is no way this could possibly be the way wikipedia is run since almost every user besides this one does not have such a strict view of how edits should work. I'm not genre warring if allmusic clearly states alternative rock and post-hardcore in a way that clearly means genre i have every right to cite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha. You have new messages at AdabowtheSecond's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A copy for reference of a discussion for reference: Please explain to me why you reverted [my perfectly valid edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Up_All_Night_%28One_Direction_album%29&diff=502612522&oldid=502599279] on the one direction up all night (album) page and dared to label it as "blatant vandalism." Also, please explain to me how one direction is a "band" despite not writing songs and not playing instruments (live or in studio). It is a "group" as I edited. Get your facts right before reverting next time. I would like you to reinstate my edit after you realise your errors. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all no one is ever going respect your edits if you blurt out your opinion when you make an edit lets quote "They are not a "band." Do hear REAL INSTRUMENTS? Are there any guitarists, bassists or drummers? They basically don't even write their own songs. Pathetic, manufatured tween pop BS." -- "They aren't a "band." They are manufactured rubbish!". I could go into a discussion with about the hole "manfacutuard" and "not really a band" it would waisting time because Wikipedia is not personal and therefore you should stop inflicting your opinion when you make edits because 80% of the time what your replacing is what exactly says in the source and are backed by a third party source. I'm a fan of 1D although I don't like the usage of band or group to describe them just One Direction would be better. AdabowtheSecond (talk) 16:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For one, they are completely manufactured and commercial as are most boy bands. Formed on a TV show, handed songs to record, and turned into a brand to sell. Now, you can't keep repeating "one direction" throughout the article, and "band" is misleading, thus "group" would be most suitable, but you happened to revert that. From your post I still do not see why. "I'm a fan of 1D although I don't like the usage of band or group to describe them just One Direction would be better" is not a reasonal point for dispute. Noreplyhaha (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You can change band to group if you want. Is this discussion concluded? Regards AdabowtheSecond (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Three Cheers for Sweet Revenge, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to The Black Parade, without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 18:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Believe (Justin Bieber album), you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a copy of my response here for future reference. "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at Believe (Justin Bieber album), you may be blocked from editing. Friginator (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)." Firstly, I would like to cite a Wikipedia policy, reaching consensus through editing. It states: "When an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. Seek a compromise means "attempt to find a generally acceptable solution", either through continued editing or through discussion." You disagreed with my addition of "teen pop" to the infobox on the believe page. This would call for seeking a compromise, not sending a stupid "disruptive editing" warning to me. Furthermore, none of the genres on that page are even sourced. How about we just remove all of them then, huh? Also, this edit this edit you reverted on the same page was of an extra word added to a sentence to improve clarity, a sentence I originally wrote which had reached consensus. According to policy, "any revert should be explained...edit summaries that explain the objection clearly are preferred." Your labeling it as "vandalism" does not provide adequate reasoning for your removal of it. I would now like to ask you to stop disrupting Wikipedia. Noreplyhaha (talk) 09:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's assessment: the 3 templated warnings above were inappropriately made.^[1] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:31, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha. You have new messages at Talk:Fall Out Boy.
Message added 13:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Minor barnstar

I know it's just a little edit that you made but with regards to the addition of The Voice (U.S. season 3) audition by Cassadee Pope I sincerely appreciate it. I guess I could have just put the line in myself at the end of the biography with the citation but I was not sure if I would do it correctly. You seem to have much more experience with Wikipedia than I do. Thanks. BYEFandom (talk) 15:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated :) Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

after we take down the pop/rock and add the allmusic style citations should we lock down the My chemical romance albums so that something like this doesn't happen again, because considering all the edit warring something like this is bound to happen.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really "lock" anything, but we can develop a new consensus/agreement. Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lets hope friginator allows for that to happen.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 06:30, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also i assume he's going to try and block me for all the "vandalism" i've done on the my chemical romance pages, hold down the fort if he does that and make sure he knows that allmusic styles are genuine citations for genres and that you and me have reached a consensus for the genres related to three cheers for sweet revenge — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicstuff0324 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, Friginator acknowledged our argument for the rest of the genres on the Allmusic page in his recent edit. However, the incorrect "pop/rock" tag is still there. Oh well. Noreplyhaha (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please come to the talk page so we can talk about how we're going to go about editing the genres and figure out how to interpret allmusic classification for wikipedia. We need to come to a consensus, and we should all be polite and non aggressive just so everyone doesn't end up snapping at each other.--Musicstuff0324 (talk) 04:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's been agreed upon to use the "Styles" of Allmusic. So you can just put all the Allmusic "styles" in the Wikipedia infoboxes. I can't be bothered disputing "pop/rock." The "styles" are on the pages now so that's good enough I guess. Noreplyhaha (talk) 04:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Party Rock Anthem seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 21:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia edits such as that couldn't be more neutral. Noreplyhaha (talk) 06:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 03:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted your edit to ¡Uno!, as it introduced self-published sources, such as blogs and Twitter, which arent acceptable nor reliable as they have no editorial oversight, fact-checking, and can be held by anyone with an account. Charts News (Twitter) was specifically discussed and disputed at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Whether or not it sold the amount you say it did, a core policy of Wikipedia, and any other enyclopedia, is verifiability, not truth. Dan56 (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from changing genres without providing a source and without establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. — Oz (talk) 06:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, you may be blocked from editing. — Oz (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources reviewed, consensus reached here. Noreplyhaha (talk) 05:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Regarding your edit here: you accidentally removed several references that I had added before I created the extra column. If you don't like the column, feel free to remove it but please keep the additional references. Please note however that the references are for the peak positions and not for the chart names. In my opinion, it looks better if the references are placed after the the information that is sourced. Since the peak position column would no longer be properly sortable if references are being added there, I decided to add a "References" column. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 12:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I have edited the page accordingly now. As for the positioning of references for peak positions, they are placed after chart names. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no prob, man! i've been searching for that big alt press take this to your grave cover story to cite, but i can't seem to find a scan. i want to make that article great. Thardin12 (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RE: i want to make that page better! i just wish i could find a book covering pop punk or something. it's really hard to find sources for it, especially early years. you've done a great job on the FOB articles, so tip of the hat to you. Thardin12 (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, "Take My Hand" it's a digital single in many European countries. --Zack Tartufo (talk) 11:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did some more research and it seems that "Take My Hand" was indeed released as a digital single in some countries and has an Italian Wikipedia page for it as a digital single. This is supported by the iTunes item "Take My Hand - Single" in countries such as this. However, singles in the infobox of Wikipedia pages are for official singles that have been commissioned to radio. If you'd like, you can put the song back in the article with "Digital single" in brackets after it. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that arena rock is a musical genre was raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Music genres task force#Arena rock - Genre or not?

The results went against my wishes; the current consensus is that arena rock is not a genre. Binksternet (talk) 06:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to this consensus. Noreplyhaha (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How's it going – nice work with Fall Out Boy, by the way. I'm assuming that you got a chance to go to Soundwave, too. Anyway, I had a question (I know you explicitly said not to ask, but I haven't been here long enough to know that) – why don't you have a user page? ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 10:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the support and also thanks for your own work and patrolling on Fall Out Boy's pages! FOB and NFG at Soundwave were the best! Managed to get so many good photographs too. I grabbed onto Andy's used drum stick thrown by a roadie at the end but eventually lost the pulling fight for it at the end...

I like my name in red in the edit history of pages because it makes it easier for me to spot at a glance. Also, I like the idea of other editors maybe assuming userpage-less "red" edits are bad but then mine turn out to be good. I use the top of my Talk page as a user description as you saw. Btw, I used to read your name as "for the Wayne" but finally realised it is "for the win"! Noreplyhaha (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you had a lot of fun. I wish that I could have gone, but I didn't have the time. Anyway, I guess I can see where you're coming from; the first time that I saw your name appear, I checked out your talk page and immediately recognised that you knew what you were doing, and that I could trust you. And not many people realise (despite my user page) that the "Wynne" in my username is actually my surname; some people just assume that I'm being fancy. But yeah, that's the gist of it, with 4 being my favourite number, and so it all fitted nicely. ^(talk)4TheWynne^(cont) 08:09, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you keep an eye on user Riot kiddo? He/she added any false information on some pages. 115.164.212.12 (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, I will keep tabs on that user and their genre edits from time to time. Noreplyhaha (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this: do you know who the master is? If this indeed is a sockpuppet, it would give you an exemption from the 3RR. Widr (talk) 12:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is one person with a few accounts and also as an IP user. The user was under 177.143.182.89 and made similar unsourced and unexplained edits such as this, this and this. Then they became User:Fernanda Vasconcelos and made disruptive edits including this and this on the Vices & Virtues page. However, the scope of the disruptive edits also extended to the other three Panic! at the Disco album pages including this and this to Too Weird to Live. They also removed sourced information from Save Rock and Roll. A month and a bit later the individual came back as User:EllenGrantBruce and made more falsely sourced edits over the producer of Panic albums. Where should we go from here? Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's always WP:SPI, although at this point, with the previous account being stale, request for investigation would probably be declined (as the user probably abandoned the previous account and started a new one, which is acceptable). And checkusers don't usually connect IP addresses to named accounts at all. What you could do, though, is issue warnings to the users who keep adding unsourced stuff, especially if you notice that they are repeat offenders. I left a warning of edit warring to User:EllenGrantBruce a few days ago, and they haven't made any edits since. I'll keep some of these articles on my watchlist for the time being. Widr (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In case the admins don't see your edit history, you can request page protection at this page. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I just made a request on the page. Noreplyhaha (talk) 11:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you recently edited at an MCR-related article, here's a discussion you might want to give some input at. Kokoro20 (talk) 02:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it has come to my attention that you have placed the Alternative Songs and Mainstream Rock charts for some of the singles for Fall Out Boy. If you refer to WP:USCHARTS, it clearly states that if a song has charted on Rock Airplay, then the Alternative Songs, Adult Alternative Songs and Mainstream Rock charts (the charts to which the audience contributes to the ranking of Rock Airplay) are no longer needed. Please refrain from putting them back in after I have corrected them. Thanks. Ellis.o22 (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha! If you'd like to make a case for undoing my edits to the Uma Thurman entry, I'd love to know what your reasons are. I think my edits are all justified for the reasons I stated in the comments, and I will be re-entering them unless there is an important reason not to.

John Bailey Owen (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Noreplyhaha. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]