Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:35, 8 December 2024

This is FMSky's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 10.5 days

Progressive death metal->Technical death metalTechnical_death_metal-20241204215700">

Hello! I noticed you switched the redirect for Progressive death metal from Technical death metal back to progressive metal, saying they are not the same after I said they were. I was wondering why that is the case. If you look at the edit history for Progressive death metal back when it had an infobox, the infobox for it is literally the same one used in Technical death metal, except Avant-garde metal is replaced with progressive rock, and the source for jazz fusion is removed. As far as I can tell, both progressive and technical death metal are basically the same with no apparent differences. If you know the differences, please do list the sources that describe them, otherwise, I see no reason that progressive death metal can't redirect to technical death metal. Moline1 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)Technical_death_metal"> Technical_death_metal">

Hi, do you have any sources confirming that they are synonyms? Just googling "progressive death metal vs technical death metal" suggests they are different, see for example here https://loudwire.com/differences-technical-progressive-metal/ --FMSky (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

This Reddit thread also talks about their differences: https://www.reddit.com/r/TechnicalDeathMetal/comments/7cunav/prog_vs_tech/

Between Loudwire and Reddit, I see now that they are, in fact, different. Thank you for providing that Loudwire source! Moline1 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, this is regarding the Tupac page

Hi @FMSkyI see that you recently edited the Tupac page but your edits were reverted by some users who are clearly spreading puffery. There seems to be a clear issue of puffery on that page, which I see you have opposed. I would love you to contribute to the TalkPage under the section “Academic views”. I have recently written: “Looking at the history, there was no discussion or consensus about academics being mentioned both in the first paragraph and the fourth. I believe it can be mentioned in the fourth paragraph, but not in the first, because it’s not that notable, and it’s already covered in the second sentence which covers his influence. I’m against puffery. Other users have already shown opposition to this puffery regarding the topic of academics such as @FMSkyand @JustAnotherCompanion”. RapForever863 (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor image

Hi FMSky, I wanted to hear your reasoning for categorizing the previous image as "the worst infobox photo of all time" as that is quite a harsh description. The image has a clear resolution, good lighting, and most importantly, is reflective of how Trainor looks right now. Looking at any video of Trainor recently (example), she does not look as chubby as she does in the one you have replaced it with. All of the promotional material related to her recent music and tour has a blue theme as well. There are a few options in this category that we can work with, and there is also this one, which does not have an awkward half-illumination. Thoughts on the other ones?--NØ 17:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are we talking about this image?

--FMSky (talk) 17:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This might work imo

--FMSky (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

This was the image previously in the article before the revert.

These might be good options from the Vogue video (the other images can be seen in the category).

Although, if you think all shots from the Vogue video are poor, I much prefer this one to the one currently used.--NØ 17:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That one is good too, but yeah the Vogue ones arent great --FMSky (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Russell Brand Sexual misconduct allegations

Hello, you recently deleted an edit of mine on the Russell Brand page regarding his Sexual misconduct allegations. The edit was factual and included a news source. I'm going to restore the edit unless I get a valid reason to why it was deleted?

It was in regards to multiple right-wing celebrities having come out to defend Brand's accusations of sexual assault including Andrew Tate, Elon Musk, Alex Jones, Tucker Carlson, Mark Collett and Ian Miles Cheong.

Many of the celebrities who have come out to defend Russell Brand have also been accused of sexual assault, they are all just as bad as each other. Stellar master elite (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, as stated twice in edit summaries, the reasoning is WP:Vice, which is not considered a reliable source. And your last comment also doesn't suggest you're here to address this issue from a neutral perspective

More puffery on the Tupac page

Hi, something needs to be done on the Tupac page as the childish puffery is still going on. RapForever863 (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I agree that this version of the lead has too much puffery, maybe a WP:3O or WP:RFC makes sense. User Pier1999 is problematic anyway and seems to only have edited this one article since registering past March. --FMSky (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you. The puffery was too much. Also, @HumanRightsIsCool is also responsible for a lot of this, as he/she often reinstates Pier1999’s edits. RapForever863 (talk) 19:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Correction @HumansRightsIsCool RapForever863 (talk) 19:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Your recent revert

Hi, not sure why you reverted again as your concern was addressed with a reliable source in support of the text. PoliticalPoint (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)