User talk:Xcryoftheafflictedx

Underoath

Whassup? Your sources are all correct and I'm not debating whether or not Underoath is a Christian band; they most definitely are. If you notice, I didn't remove "the fact that Underoath is a Christian band from the article" (emphasis added); I just removed it from the first sentence. Later in that first paragraph, the article mentions that they are Christian and that their faith is reflected in their music. Switchfoot, P.O.D., and Anberlin all start off in similar fashion and I think it's done just to make the article look more encyclopedic. Would you start off the John Wooden article by saying he is "a Christian basketball coach" or would you start the Stephen Baldwin article by calling him "a Christian actor"? If you wanted, you could write a section in the article (after the Warped Tour controversy, maybe) about Underoath and their faith and to what extent they are played in Christian media.

I also have to disagree with you that "there is no subtle spirituality in Underoath's lyrics." I'd agree that, if taken from their Christian point of view, that the lyrics aren't all that subtle. But suppose you were hearing, say, "In Regards to Myself" for the first time and didn't know anything about Underoath or their background. Would you KNOW with 100% certainty that the line "It's all worth reaching for the hand to pull you out" refers to God saving you? On the other hand, if you listened to, say, Chris Tomlin or Matt Redman, their lyrics are all spelled out -- the only way that they could be interpreted is that they are talking about God and Christianity. Outside of "Some Will Seek Forgiveness, Others Escape", newer Underoath material does not explicitly name God, Jesus, or Christianity, except out of desperation, which is common of mainstream artists as well.

Thanks for contributing to the article; I hope this clears up the confusion. Roofi's Publicist 18:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Underoath’s popularity lies mostly in the mainstream; the July 2006 issue of CCM Magazine (page 37) states that out of the 365,000 copies of They’re Only Chasing Safety, only a little more than 20,000 of those were sold at Christian retailers. The band is not played on regular Christian radio, rarely does shows solely with other Christian bands, and never plays “Christian” shows at churches or Christian festivals (except Cornerstone). Like it or not, the band is most associated with the mainstream music scene. To write in the opening sentence that they are a “Christian rock” band would suggest that their popularity exists solely or primarily within the Christian music scene, which is not the case. U2, The Fray, Sufjan Stevens, Thrice, Mindy Smith, Eisley, etc., all claim to be Christians or to have Christian members in their band, but because the bulk of their popularity comes from mainstream listeners, they are not described as “Christian” in the opening sentence. Demon Hunter is a case that could go either way, as is Relient K; Christian bands that have been played in the mainstream but retain most of their popularity from CCM followings (i.e. Family Force 5, Thousand Foot Krutch, Skillet, etc.) are and should be called “Christian” in the opening sentence. To sum up, the opening description is derived from how the artist is popularly known, not as how the artist would necessarily like to be known (Fall Out Boy could say that they’re a death metal band, but that wouldn’t change the fact that they’re pop-punk).

Sorry for the dissertation and for being a pain, but I strongly feel that the article should stay the way it is. Roofi's Publicist 03:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Your edit's fine, I take no issue with it. You may have to convince other users of your position, but I feel like this is a good compromise. Thanks for doing this the right way (through talk pages) and not going through mindless revert wars. Roofi's Publicist 19:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Userbox

Hey cry! Yeah sure it's no problem at all. In fact, after this edit, I will change it immediately!Fractions 22:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Reverting articles

Please do not revert anymore articles until your reverts are necessary. I am speaking of your revert to the Brother's Martin article. I have already been through this with the other user. If this continues I am going to take the issue to a higher up. Do not revert the article again. Also, I am quite sure that you are aware of the other user who was previously performing the reverts until he was finally banned. Welcome back! Play nicely.

C&R 04:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Do whatever. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 04:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is sad that this has become such an issue. You do not even try to work with the current article. You just keep reverting back to that poorly written one from long ago. I noticed that you deleted the DHC page once again and had it redirecting to the BM article. That is not at all appropriate as TBM and DHC are two different things regardless of what people they have in common. I have already said this to you. I have made every attempt to discuss these things with you yet you want it to be a battle instead of finding a compromise. You don't care, right? Obviously you do not considering what you did to be banned a few weeks ago. It seems to me that people like you should not be allowed to edit articles because you do not know how to discuss the edits with the people who have a problem with your edits. You do not know how to communicate with other users. I left some tips for you on the talk page of the BM article. Evidently you did not read what I wrote because I had also said that poorly written articles are not acceptable. You cannot visit wikipedia and just do whatever you want. This is a community which means you have to work with others. You have to compromise. And you have to listen and be understanding when someone tells you that your edits are unfounded and/or unnecessary.

One last time. Do not be editing the articles unless it is relevant and necessary to do so. Do not revert, do not redirect. This is the very last time I am telling you.

C&R 15:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just revert the freaking article and shut up. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 07:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rapcore

Please stop adding uncorrect informations. If you continue to disrupt the article by adding Korn and removing refs to metal/punk/funk from the infobox, I'll forced to indicate you at WP:RFC. --Chargin' Chuck 23:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

DHC

I like the info that you added to the DHC article. It helps it to be more informative and it is also more thorough.

I did not know that you were capable of actually doing something constructive on wikipedia. Hopefully you will keep up the constructive edits and stop the other crap that you've been doing

C&R 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop exaggerating. I made edits that you don't like, that doesn't mean I'm incapable of constructive edits. I haven't done any "crap" since I've joined (other than flaming the "playa hatas"); just resolving issues, re-categorizing articles, writing, improving, and being bold. That's the true meaning of Wikipedia, Charlie Brown. Nevertheless, I'm glad you're happy with my edits to the page. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 21:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I take back that I said something nice to you. You are not even content with a compliment. You have to point out what you feel is wrong about what EVERYTHING I write.

Your edits were incorrect and unwarranted. That goes beyond what I don't like. You have made other edits that I do not like, but I have not touched those.

And yes, you have done plenty of crap, I assure you.

You are not good for wikipedia. You want to know why? Because you do not work well with others and you do not communicate well with others. And you always have to have your way. How childish. Please grow up soon.

People under 16 years of age should not be allowed to edit wikipedia.

That's all I have to say. I will not be wasting anymore of my typing on your talk page.

C&R 02:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Good. Shut up. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 05:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Underoath

Any particular reason you think Underoath is Emo [1]? Because... they're not. AFAIK, they have never been described as such by a reliable source. Would you like to put one in the article next time you add them as "Emo"? --Hojimachong^talk 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Underoath is obviously considered emo. The emo article also acknowledges this. Also, if you listen to Underoath's two last albums, it's obviously influenced by emo. Please do not revert. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 05:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't revert. And what is given at Emo (music) is a community-published site, hardly a reliable source under WP:SELFPUB. And I have listened to Underoath's albums, and would not regard them as Emo, at all. --Hojimachong^talk 05:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, I will look for reliable sources. Thanks for not reverting. _xcryoftheafflicted_x 05:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

nice job, I'm out for the night. Happy editing, --Hojimachong^talk 05:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

KsE

Please do not remove citation, and rewvert the genre back. If you read through those pages, they back-up the fact that KsE are metalcore, with more melodic vocals etc. therefore "Melodic Metalcore". Your reason for changing it back makes no sense! "how about just metalcore? we already know they're melodic" Other people coming to the site may not know they are melodic, so leave it as that, unless there is citation for any other genres, in which case they can be added as well. Any problems, please contact me. Asics talk ^{Editor review!} 11:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Visor robot

The Brothers Chaps (the creators of H*R) refer to it as the Visor Robot in the commentary for Homestarloween Party on the Everything Else DVD. That's why we use that term. Heimstern Läufer 15:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Matt says that he didn't name the robot that, hence it being unnamed. Besides, we should wait for the name to be used in one of the actual cartoons before jumping on the bandwagon, anyway. Xcryoftheafflictedx 16:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he says he didn't name it that. But he makes it clear he uses the name. I think that should be enough for us. Heimstern Läufer 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, we wait for an official confirmation (in this case, a mention of the name in one of the actual cartoons). We can be a little nitpicky, really, but it's all good for the encyclopedia. I won't revert it back, but I will ask you to consider doing it. (You might want to change it back with a note that the name was used in that commentary.) Xcryoftheafflictedx 19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Your vandalism of the Pat Robertson article

It has been reverted. Please don't do it again. Jinxmchue 19:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Xcryoftheafflictedx, if you would like to write satirical Wikipedia content, you'll feel right at home at Uncyclopedia: [2] Enjoy! But please keep you're satire on that site, not this one. --Shadowlink1014 20:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

re: Adoption

Hi, XcryoftheafflictedX,

I see you're looking to be adopted. I've been around Wikipedia for a while and I can probably answer most questions you might have. I'd be happy to adopt you until you feel you know your way around. Let me know if you'd like my help or if you'd rather wait for a different adopter.

--killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 04:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Smile

Marlith ^T/C has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Underoathlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Underoathlogo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Request to participate in University of Washington survey on tool to quickly understand Wikipedians’ reputations

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington. In April, we met with some local Wikipedians to learn what they would like to know about other editors’ history and activities (within Wikipedia) when interacting with them on talk pages. The goal of those sessions was to gather feedback to help design an embedded application that could quickly communicate useful information about other Wikipedians. We have now created a few images that we feel represent some of what our participants thought was important. We would appreciate it if you took a few minutes of your time to complete an online survey that investigates whether or not these images would be useful to you. Your quick contribution would be very valuable to our research group and ultimately to Wikipedia. (When finished, the code for this application will be given over to the Wikipedia community to use and/or adjust as they see fit.)

Willing to spend a few minutes taking our survey? Click this link.

Please feel free to share the link with other Wikipedians. The more feedback, the better! The survey is completely anonymous and takes less than 10 minutes to complete. All data is used for university research purposes only.

Thank you for your time! If you have any questions about our research or research group, please visit our user page. Commprac01 (talk) 01:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Additional details about our research group are available here.

Article notability notification

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote, The Otherly Opus, has been recently tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: Find sources: "The Otherly Opus" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OtherlyOpus.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OtherlyOpus.gif. 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) 02:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)