Misplaced Pages

Talk:Glam punk: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 14:41, 8 January 2008 editTheOnly ones (talk | contribs)19 edits regarding warped tour kid's vandalism← Previous edit Revision as of 22:38, 8 January 2008 edit undoHoponpop69 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,319 edits →Sources are getting deleted for valid reasonsNext edit →
Line 21: Line 21:


::The numerous sources (17) are in following with ], tough luck if you "don't like them". Troll this article again, vandalising huge sections and a move will be made to get you banned for ], ], ]. If you feel certain parts need an aditional source or a source at all, then a "fact" tag is to be placed next to it, however your blanking/vandalism of the article '''will''' be reverted. You could always go listen to your Green Day CDs while the big boys contrib to the articles. - ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC) ::The numerous sources (17) are in following with ], tough luck if you "don't like them". Troll this article again, vandalising huge sections and a move will be made to get you banned for ], ], ]. If you feel certain parts need an aditional source or a source at all, then a "fact" tag is to be placed next to it, however your blanking/vandalism of the article '''will''' be reverted. You could always go listen to your Green Day CDs while the big boys contrib to the articles. - ] (]) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about actually taking a look at those sources, you'd realise most of them don't even mention the term glam punk. Irregardless I reverted back to your edit (with some small edits like deleting a source that was a geocities site) because I don't have time for this, and you will soon be blocked for incivility after I file a report.] (]) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


==Glampunk.org has been deemed an invalid source== ==Glampunk.org has been deemed an invalid source==

Revision as of 22:38, 8 January 2008

WikiProject iconMusic/Music genres task force Stub‑class
WikiProject iconGlam punk is within the scope of the Music genres task force of the Music project, a user driven attempt to clean up and standardize music genre articles on Misplaced Pages. Please visit the task force guidelines page for ideas on how to structure a genre article and help us assess and improve genre articles to good article status.Music/Music genres task forceWikipedia:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forceTemplate:WikiProject Music/Music genres task forcemusic genre
StubThis article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
WikiProject iconPunk music (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Punk music, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Punk musicWikipedia:WikiProject Punk musicTemplate:WikiProject Punk musicPunk music

Stop deleting sourced info

Just because YOU do not like an article doesn't mean that you can delete it. ESPECIALLY when it is a sourced article.Crescentia 14:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read the talk page edit history you would see the only sources that were deleted were because they had nothing to do with what was in the article. Hoponpop69 23:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sources are getting deleted for valid reasons

Hoponpop69 00:18, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The numerous sources (17) are in following with WP:Verifiability, tough luck if you "don't like them". Troll this article again, vandalising huge sections and a move will be made to get you banned for WP:VANDAL, WP:BLANK, WP:TROLL. If you feel certain parts need an aditional source or a source at all, then a "fact" tag is to be placed next to it, however your blanking/vandalism of the article will be reverted. You could always go listen to your Green Day CDs while the big boys contrib to the articles. - TheOnly ones (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

How about actually taking a look at those sources, you'd realise most of them don't even mention the term glam punk. Irregardless I reverted back to your edit (with some small edits like deleting a source that was a geocities site) because I don't have time for this, and you will soon be blocked for incivility after I file a report.Hoponpop69 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Glampunk.org has been deemed an invalid source

Hoponpop69 00:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Categories: