User talk:Aradicus77

Category:Proto-punk groups has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello - I just wanted to say thank you for your extensive contributions thusfar. I'm often editing Cottagecore to bring it in line with other pages e.g. Dark academia, and it would be great to discuss possible terminologies that internet aesthetic articles can draw on rather than 'proponents of x', 'fans of y' and so on. If you have any thoughts on this while traversing the different pages, do let me know - maybe it would be best to have the conversation in Talk: Internet aesthetics? Becsh (talk) 23:18, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm not sure what you mean? But yeah we could have a discussion on that page's talk page. I've been working on establishing more articles on early internet art. There's big gaps in blog era movements that have not really been noted yet. It seemed at the turn of the century most artists saw the proliferation of art through the blogosphere to be the way forward for innovative art practices, and then that sentiment kind of died down but left the groundwork for a lot of what exists right now (the popularity of internet aesthetics pioneered by Tumblr users in the early 2010s, internet microgenres becoming normal in the online music sphere amongst gen Z post-hyperpop in 2020, but was pioneered by millennials with chillwave and vaporwave).

I don't know much about the aesthetics you highlighted cottagecore and dark academia. The main thing about writing about aesthetics here is that there's not many sources for the more nicher variants. I'd like a weirdcore page to exist but I don't think there's enough reputable sources. But feel free to add more nicher aesthetics to the Internet aesthetics related examples section. I think there should be more expansion for it to encompass notable aesthetics like bimbocore, barbiecore... etc. That saw some attention in the press but not notable enough for their own articles. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

I had made a mistake on reverting your sandbox. My apologies. No ill will intended. I fixed my error as well. Bntlyprce (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey dude my name is Deegs and I actually wanted to know if I could send you some super early instances of “proto” rage beats being made and rapped over in the UG as far back as 2017! A lot of the songs were made by me and my friends and have the streams to back up! I would love for our contributions to be included in the lore if possible 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

My IG is @de3gs 198.58.251.234 (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

That'd be cool but I don't think that's possible bro, like the way wikipedia works is you need like a news article / reputable source to write about stuff. There's hella stuff I want to add but if it doesn't have good sources it just gets deleted. Also people would ban me for promo too if I added it. But thanks for reaching out Aradicus77 (talk) 03:18, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

hi, i see you around a lot on wikipedia and i wanna say thanks for fixing the hyperpop wiki page, it was really outdated and i saw you on the talk page for it saying you were gonna fix, i wanted to add some stuff to it but im still new to wikipedia and didnt wanna mess up anything

also your music taste is amazing btw Yellowcalx4 (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

DAMN thanks a lot, it really means a lot to get messages like this im surprised a few people heave reached out lately. You should definitely add stuff to articles, good-faith edits are supported, if you got some sourcing it's pretty much fine, other editors can help in incorporating it better into the article.

Wish I could follow people on here, pretty cool community XP Aradicus77 (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

same tbh, you seem very cool and again i appreciate you adding a bunch of stuff for modern music genres, im a genre nerd and it hurts seeing a lot of modern stuff just be wrong or outdated

i’m definitely gonna try and do some small edits to articles and stuff. also again amazing taste glad to see some twikipedia and xavsobased fans randomly on wikipedia Yellowcalx4 (talk) 21:45, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Lofi Gurl. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mumble rap without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:42, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Mumble rap's stylistic origins being rap rock and hard rock is not sourced, those sources were dead, and to make stylistic origins sources like that you need far more than 1 source. One of the sources claiming it came from rap rock was also just an article about XXXtentacion's death that mentioned him making indie rock infused trap music. Aradicus77 (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay fair enough, just state it in the edit summary if the links were dead so people can see what is being removed, the edit looked like an unconstructive removal at face value. Thanks. Lofi Gurl (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Noisecore a different title by cutting its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work when moving the page to another page when there's already a page made. When I submitted Shitgaze to Wikipedia:Requested Moves, users told me to just "cut-and-paste move" as you've stated. So I just started doing that for pages. It seems if a page has been denied, or previously deleted. You have to go through Wikipedia:Requested Moves to move it. Is there any other way to go about this? I waited 4 days when messaging whoever deleted the Jack Ruby (band) page originally in order to move it, and the person who deleted it never replied. Subsequently, the same thing with Shitgaze. I waited same amount of time and no one ever moved it and I was told I could move it myself with that method you mentioned. Aradicus77 (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the information about Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. I'll list the pages I've moved that way now: Noisecore and Shitgaze

Aradicus77 (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The specific situation involving Shitgaze was unusual, both in that there was prior article history and that you were the only author of the draft; in that specific scenario a cut-and-paste move might have been warranted even though it in general isn't.

I have no idea what is going on with Jack Ruby (band). But, more generally than that, if you can't complete a move then you have to go to WP:RMTR; trying to circumvent the way the software works only causes trouble. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello there! I saw this article on the GA nominations page, and just wanted to stop by to say great job on it. There's a few stylistic things which I wanted to let you know about, however, which are not strictly against GA rules but may be good to implement:

• Per MOS:LQ, punctuation like periods and commas should generally be outside of quotation marks, especially for when sentence fragments are being used. This is done correctly, for instance, in the line Hyperpop has been described as "post-internet". but not in other lines like According to Vice journalist Eli Enis, hyperpop is not so much about following music rules, but "a shared ethos of transcending genre altogether, while still operating within the context of pop."
• Per MOS:REFPUNCT, references should be placed after punctuation marks, and not before them. For instance, in the line Other influences included bubblegum pop[29] and emo[1], alongside heavy metal genres like crunkcore, nu metal, and metalcore.[25], reference #25 is placed correctly while reference #1 is not.
• And to this point, make sure that citations appear in places where they follow the text which they are citing; I see this issue a few times, such as in the line Journalist Aliya Chaudhury believes 3OH!3 "created the main blueprint for hyperpop"[25] with their "ability to parody pop and take it to bewildering extremes," using "blown-out synths, and modulated vocals." where the citation should be moved to the end of the sentence instead of appearing midway through.
• Finally, per MOS:LEAD (specifically MOS:LEADCITE), a lead should ideally be a summary of information already inside the article's body, and thus the citations there could be removed save for the more controversial sentences.

If you keep these things in mind and brush up the article accordingly, the article not only be easier to navigate and comply with the Manual of Styles, but it will also look more polished. Good luck on your nomination :) Leafy46 (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the headsup. I'll revamp accordingly. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:43, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The involuntary celibacy page was deleted 5 times and then salted. White unsalted it and undeleted it to the chagrin of many veterans including feminist veterans, who advocated moving her initial writing to some page like misogyny. At this point, White was defining involuntary celibacy itself as a subculture. This offended even the most generic Wikipedians who then held a vote and moved her involuntary celibacy page to incel in 2018, continuing along the same line, except this time by saying "incel is a subculture of people who think they are involuntarily celibate. In both of these cases, the impetus, and her stated imeptus was to downplay involuntary celibacy as a real thing. A narrow majority of interested Wikipedians about a decade ago agreed that involuntary celibacy was not even a real thing, despite being confronted with over a dozen WP:RS sources. Later, all that disagreed with White on a regular basis were banned on tenuous grounds and started their own wikis and websites. Due to White's stated intention to challenge your article no matter what is on it, even though she preferred he article be at involuntary celibacy shows she wants to continue to monopolize the subject on here. The same reason she helped AFD an article about a related, bigoted forum. Your chances of your draft passing any kind of challenge is next to none. White is described by critics of Wikipedia as a "nuclear" administrator force on Wikipedia, along with other veterans like David G erard. If you continue your draft despite it just for fun, please keep in mind half your sources are actually about what White regards as the "incel subculture" and the other half are not about involuntary celibacy as a subject. The sources I gave, the first 12-15 are pretty much exclusively about involuntary celibacy with close to 0 mention of what some regard as a subculture. Actually nearly all the sources I provided don't even mention the word incel or blackpill at all except 4 or 5. I actually cannot think of any more sources beyond what I provided that would meet Wikipedia's standards, at this point, which totaled about 41 sources. The Fox News one can't be used though. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:01, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

This is very interesting, it does seem your article spoke more about the broad history of celibacy throughout different cultures and history. But some parts were badly written like the part on Jordan Peterson and there was a level of bias. Don't get me wrong, there's also heavy bias on the current incel page and red pill and blue pill page, and doesn't feel that encompassing of a neutral point of view, even though the incel subculture itself is far more extremist than the history of involuntary celibacy. I feel the article you added would not have been approved at all if was sent out. The one I'm trying to write is more focused on the history of the term involuntary celibacy and how people have regarded it throughout history. I don't really believe involuntary celibacy to be a "thing" in the sense that its a condition that affects people. But I'd like to read more into what you added and the writers you've cited. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Also who is White? I don't think I've spoken to this person. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time. It's also an article that would rely a lot on primary sources. And this is kind of a history that a lot of people aren't focusing on at the moment as the incel subculture is far more prevalent in the media than the history. For example, most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"Who is White", the person you were arguing against, see User:GorillaWarfare, where she gives her name. She also has her own Wikipedia article. She served on ArbCom and is the self-appointed steward of the incel page for over 7 years. Every few years some people come to her to put their sources or perspective in. The result always is she'll contribute to deleting any possible overlapping page, she will merge anything she can to her page to create a larger coatrack, any user arguing with her for more than a month will just end up banned, or she'll make very minor changes to her page.

"The sources you mentioned that don't mention the subculture seem useful. That's pretty much what I needed but what you are telling me that she might just disapprove entirely regardless makes me feel like writing this article is a waste of time"

Using sources that define it as the "incel subculture" would indeed skip the BS arguments and delete it solely for being a duplicate page, so yes that's why my sources (which aren't really mine, they been brought up time and time again in AFDs), are necessary to establish it as a unique article, as User:Valoem points out a decade ago. User:Valoem was the last good standing Wikipedian to do what you are attempting to do here and has his own draft in his userspace. 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

She seems to be somewhat notable, had no clue about that. I felt making a distinction between "involuntary celibacy" and "incel" would be the most useful thing to happen to the topic on Wikipedia but it seems like it probably won't be possible until like the 2030s or something. There's not enough wide talk in academia or in the media of the actual history of "involuntary celibacy" and most discussion is geared around the subculture like I've mentioned. Wikipedia seems to pick and choose on what to make difficult and what not to make difficult. There's a lot of articles I've observed that if an admin wanted to guard could remove a lot of sources by employing rules on a whim. Like I've seen sometimes people use sources that aren't allowed and it stay on... etc. I feel I might just let go of the involuntary celibacy and blackpill page and focus on just researching the topic on my own. Since the incel page is so guarded and this is not a war I have any time or patience to fight. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

" most people who have heard the word incel have no idea that it was coined 300 years ago" This is original research, first argued by User:Thylacoop5 on a wiki I created (unrelated, notice he's also banned from Wikipedia). It's entirely speculative based on google scholar and google books queries. What a reputable Wikipedian would want to see are sources devoted to involuntary celibacy as a singular subject which in turn contribute content to the article 98.118.249.156 (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It was coined 300 years ago. It wouldn't be original research, it would just not be allowed because its a primary source. If a big news site wrote about it then it'd be allowed. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:25, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The real history of involuntary celibacy is just monopolized at the moment and I can't see that changing unless the consensus in the media and general culture changes. Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

It's not entirely monopolized, there are websites exclusively about involuntary celibacy, and wikis, Facebook Groups, and quite a few sources I provided. A singular page would need to rely more on pre-2018 articles though, and you are right about that. But there are also academics who continue that dry matter-of-fact content on involuntary celibacy as a singular subject, like Karel Karsten Himawan. Most of all though, it's just not a popular thing to write about as a dry subject. Calling things a subculture or group or movement is a sexier and lazier and easier way to write about things 98.118.249.156 (talk)

FWIW, you're talking to a sock of the WMF-banned Willwill0415, who's been on a multi-year crusade to try to POV-push on the incel article (and related topics). While they have a rather significant grudge against me, as you've probably noticed, their descriptors of me as a "nuclear administrator" and so on are highly exaggerated. I am an administrator on Wikipedia, but as with all administrators, I do not use my admin tools in topic areas where I am "WP:INVOLVED" — including the incel page. If you continue working on your draft I may well express my opinion at the ensuing DRV discussion about whether the page should be recreated, where it will be considered alongside other comments from other editors, but will not carry any more weight than any other editor's comment simply because I'm an admin. I will not (and should not, and cannot) unilaterally prevent you from creating the page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 17:19, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Im not working on the involuntary celibacy article anymore. At the moment theres not enough consensus in the media or academic focus on the topic outside of the subculture as our conversation outlined. Im not collaborating with this user I was hearing them out also I reverted most of their edits and kept their sources for my own independent research outside of wikipedia. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Generation Z music genres has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 05:07, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Internet aesthetics has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Phlsph7 -- Phlsph7 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to let you know that in your recent contributions to witch house (genre), you seemed to act as if you were the owner of the page. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. This means that editors do not own articles, including ones they create, and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, remember that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ..Also... stop restoring the template:about for the top of the page time after time again.... It is obvious that the page is about a music genre considering the page is literally named "witch house (genre)" Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 00:41, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Crazy accusation. Everyone is free to remove whatever, but it was strange to me they kept trying to remove any mention of rappers on the article, when I had already sourced the additions. I was tired of them removing sourced information around 3 times now at this point. Calling it "own" is weird. I don't care that much to be guarding articles, but I am one of the only people contributing to these articles that haven't had massive changes in almost decades Aradicus77 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

And you just reverted it again, are you missing the article I sourced? I don't understand what's going on Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

https://www.complex.com/music/a/kyle-garb/witch-house-microgenre-halloween Aradicus77 (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not me that added that template about? That's been there for years Aradicus77 (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Music genres by generation indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. ✗plicit 14:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. I thought I would try to reach out to you regarding the Pussy Galore article, as you seem to have a pretty decent knowledge of noise rock, etc. The article has/had some conflicting information about whether the band originated at Brown University in 1984, or in Washington D.C. in 1985. I've been aware of the band since they were still active in the 80s, and while I never saw Pussy Galore live, I did have some records in the 80s and have seen former members play in later bands. However, I am not confident on their origin. If you have any insight, and could possibly know of good sourcing, that would be fantastic. Cheers, CAVincent (talk) 06:29, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

It seems other sources online point to them forming September 1985, Washington, DC, United States. But it's possible there's more info in this book: "I'm Just The Drummer: My Time behind Sonic Youth, Pussy Galore, Chrome Cranks & BB Gun Magazine" Aradicus77 (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alternative hip-hop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Native tongues.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

From your summary given for your reversion of my edit: "The first wave of post-rock was in Chicago" dismisses the thorough and cited descriptions of English first wave post-rock bands in the paragraphs preceding and following the paragraph describing the Chicago school. I highly advise we focus on making it a concise subsection of the 1990s history section to avoid engaging in an editing war if you are adamant that it should receive extra emphasis. "the section wasn’t even capitalized"; this criticism does not consider that you've left the heading of the section on the second wave untouched. I have personally not seen sections in Wikipedia pages be given title case capitalization, but if you beg to differ, other editors who have contributed to the page may also make the same changes I have made. TreeLethargy (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

I get you Aradicus77 (talk) 22:22, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Category:Artists on the Nurse with Wound List has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bearcat (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Industrial music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indeterminacy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the Hyperpop and Digicore articles. I'd like to expand Dariacore into it's own article as well, if there are enough sources out there to justify it without WP:OR. Sadly much of the genre's history and progression has been lost due to a lack of media coverage. You seem to have a lot more experience with Wikipedia than I do, so if you think it's possible and would like to chat more, my discord handle is x3haven. HavenSumser (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

hii i would be interested in starting or discussing something like that!! i sent a request, my user is caitlynsult or something like that Yellowcalx4 (talk) 02:14, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Art of Walking, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Thomas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:57, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

From the introduction of WP:BLP:

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts

...so you may not rant about a BLP in a negative light. And per WP:POLEMIC, part of the userpage guideline, says prohibits the following on userpages:

Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors, persons, or other entities (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).

So no, you may not have that content. BLP is non-negotiable. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

OK whatever. Weird since it's not even an article Aradicus77 (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, as they are public.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 14:51, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I’m not used to making big edits, but the changes you’ve made to pages like hyperpop are amazing. I mostly agree with your talk page notes—the sources do seem to focus more on punk and metal’s influence on hip hop than on defining a new genre. The tricky part is coverage on the page starts and stops around 2017, which misses recent shifts. Over the past year or so, bands like Kneecap and Bob Vylan have really come to the forefront around issues of free speech, anti-Zionism, and support for Palestinian nationalism. After Bob Vylan’s Glastonbury set, where they protested against the Gaza genocide, they were widely called a punk rap duo by news sources. Also, it’d be great to include pioneers like Ice-T’s Body Count and B L A C K I E to round things out. 2A02:C7C:E4F8:F800:99D5:3D23:C450:11DE (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh this is a fair point to make then. At first when I saw that article I thought it was probably due to be marked for deletion as "punk rap" doesn't seem to have ever been used as a specific microgenre, more so an aka for Rap Rock like Rage Against the Machine. But I don't know, if there are recent sources calling those artists punk rap then that should be added to the article, but at the same time I do feel punk rap is not talked about enough for it to have its own article and should probably be under the rap rock article. The term is also incredibly broad as it links Odd Future and trap metal, opium, and all kind of rap styles under "punk" due to them drawing aesthetics from the genre or their confrontational sound. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:16, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Aradicus77, I noticed that you again reverted some of my latest edits on the Shoegaze page, so I'd like to find some consensus because I just don't see the reason for that and I don't want to engage in edit wars.

1) You said that my Far Out Magazine sources were not reliable, so okay, I removed them. No questions. I'm only not sure what you meant by "unexplained removed sources that were not Far Out Magazine" addressed to me. I only removed my Far Out sources as they're unreliable.

2) You wrote, "Pornography is mentioned in the article, but adding extra words to it is not sticking to the original source." I actually didn't add "extra words" when I wrote that "The Cure, with their gothic, textured sound from the early 1980s — particularly on their 1982 album Pornography — also had a significant influence on shoegaze bands." The words are taken directly from the article you approved.

3) Next, about content arrangement. Why did you put my sentence about Cocteau Twins and The Jesus and Mary Chain's influence on shoegaze bands in the section "1960s–1970s: Forerunners," if they are clearly widely regarded as two big 1980s influences on early shoegaze? Their most influential albums (Treasure (1984) and Psychocandy (1985)) were all released in the 1980s.

4) I don't even mention that the link you provided to Pitchfork doesn't mention the American dream-pop band Galaxie 500 as an influence on any of the first wave of shoegazers (please, reread the article you linked to).

5) I also made quite a good concise introduction: "The genre reached its peak in the early 1990s, particularly in the UK's underground rock scene, but was soon sidelined by American grunge and early Britpop acts, leading many bands to break up or reinvent their sound. From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival, with some referring to new music from this period as nu gaze. This revival has also led to the development of blackgaze and influenced niche microgenres such as shitgaze and witch house."

You removed even that...

I'd like to hear some of your thoughts on these points. Again, I'm not interested in edit wars. If there’s a good reason for reverting (like with Far Out links), that’s perfectly fine — but right now, I’m not seeing the reason.

Buf92 (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

A) The pitchfork link states "shoegaze has been attached to output as diverse as Galaxie 500's reverberant chimes"

B) I'll re-add some of your Cure edits

C) When I checked your edit summaries I saw many other sources were removed, not sure if that's through you manual reverting or something else, but there was really only 1 Far Out Magazine source. (Here's the link for Far Out not being allowed on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources)

D) I kept some of your re-wording in the lead, but I just trimmed stuff in the article. I never removed your lead rewriting, there's no need to write "niche" genres since that's not mentioned in the source. "Some referring to this music as nu gaze" is also a Weasel Word, see here: WP:AWT

Not trying to remove your edits or anything like that you made good-faith edits. At first there was confusion since it was detected you used AI, and then later some info was removed that already had proper sourcing. Aradicus77 (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

A) Yes, Pitchfork does say that. But the sentence we're talking about is about the first wave of shoegazers' influences, and none of them mentions Galaxie 500 as their influence in the corresponding links, including Pitchfork. Pitchfork just says that the "shoegaze" label has been attached (in retrospect) to diverse sounds, including Galaxie 500, but there's no mention that Slowdive or some other 1980s band listened to them when they were crafting shoegaze. The Pitchfork link is just misleading in this case.

B) Okay, thanks. But I'd drop parentheses around "gothic, textured sound." It's not a big deal, just preference. Won't fight over it.

C) I'm not sure what sources those were removed. As far as I remember, I only removed my Far Out sources. I know you told me about them a few times, so I removed them.

D) I've written "removed" my introduction because when I was writing to you my first message, I didn't see mine (I think quite a good introduction part): "The genre reached its peak in the early 1990s, particularly in the UK's underground rock scene, but was soon sidelined by American grunge and early Britpop acts, leading many bands to break up or reinvent their sound." Now I see it, thanks.

I also deliberately used the phrasing "From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival..." to emphasize that the shoegaze revival is ongoing to this day. I think it just sounds better and connects the revival to our times than "By the 2000s and 2010s, shoegaze experienced a revival." Again, won't fight over it.

"Some referring to this music as nu gaze" was not my exact wording. The original wording (I have it) was: "From the early 2000s onward, shoegaze has experienced a revival, with some referring to new music from this period as nu gaze." I tried to be objective, since many people really don't like this "nu gaze" moniker, but some (as the news outlets in the sources) use this term.

Okay, thank you. Hope you will respond to any of this.

P.S. I used AI as a search tool, but it added itself to website URLs. Won't hapeen again

Buf92 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

A) The nu gaze phrasing is original research since the source doesn't use that language. Even if people don't like the term it has to be mentioned in the original source. Even then it still reads as a weasel word with "some referring"

B) You might be right on Galaxie 500 since they came a bit later but I'll see if I can find more sources to support them being there since nowadays they are seen alongside Spacemen 3 as important progenitors of shoegaze

C) For the onwards thing, Wikipedia pages on genres aim to be brief and concise, "By the 2000s and 2010s," is straight to the point, yes the revival is still ongoing in the 2020s and might be in the 2030s, but in the sources in the article its tagged that it emerged in the early 2000s and continued into the 2010s. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

A) Okay, I got your point. Let it be.

B) I think the issue isn’t so much that they came a bit later. I think it’s because they were not that influential as a band in the first place — at least for early shoegaze bands (even American ones, let alone British). I myself tried to find some early shoegaze band mentioning them, but never found any. I think it’s misleading to even cite them among early shoegaze influences, so I hope you will remove that link to be precise in the information.

C) Got it. No questions. Buf92 (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

There's sources that still mention Galaxie 500 as being lumped into the shoegaze movement at the time, maybe you're right that there's not really good sources atm of shoegaze bands citing them as an influence, but they were definitely considered part of that movement. Adding the Guardian source I just found that talks a bit about what they did for shoegaze. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

This source is more specific on their association with early shoegaze, but honestly, still doesn’t mention that they influenced any early shoegaze band, which is what the original sentence is referring to:

“American underground bands Hüsker Dü, Sonic Youth, Galaxie 500, Dinosaur Jr., and Pixies were also cited by various shoegaze bands as touchstones for their respective sounds.”

You could mention them in a separate sentence. Something like this, if you insist on leaving them:

“Galaxie 500 were grouped with the early shoegaze scene, though their sound was very distinct from typical shoegaze.” [your Guardian link]

Btw, the author of the article himself says they were “heartbreakingly apart,” which means they were outsiders. Maybe that explains why nobody from the early shoegaze bands mentions them — they were barely known.

I don’t know, but I feel like this could be taken to the main Talk page to find consensus. It’s pretty clear that the sources just don’t add up — at least, not in the sentence where they’ve been placed. Buf92 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

		The Music Barnstar
		Great work on improving coverage of music genres, especially Hyperpop. Keep it up! :D Rosaece ♡ talk ♡ contribs 10:40, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you Aradicus77 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. I just wanted to remind you to always try to double-check your edits before making them, so there is less risk of including what could constitute WP:OR. I'm referring to your recent edits on the post-punk page regarding the band The Feelies and Jon Savage coining the term "new musick" (I assume this was your edit a while ago based on your comment above this thread). It's not a critique, just an observation. As I mentioned before, it can be helpful to use AI at times, as it can serve not only as a great search tool but also provide useful insights that you can verify yourself. I verified that "the feelies" was a reference to Brave New World and that the term "new musick" wasn't coined by Savage with AI's help. Just remember, Wikipedia requires precision. Buf92 (talk) 17:02, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hey man I just thanked you about fixing that, when editing pages more info comes out and different users fix stuff. I wrote like 15k+ words to that article so there's parts where you will have issues... I will not be using AI and don't know Wikipedia's stance on it right now. Aradicus77 (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm talking only about edits you did, not others. It's your right not to use AI's help (although you could try as an experiment). It works well, but only when you double-check what information it finds for you. The errors I managed to find were found with the help of AI. I double-checked what it was suggesting and came to the conclusion it was valid. Wikipedia requires precision in facts per WP:OR. If facts are valid, I don't think there's a problem with using AI. Buf92 (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I didn't mention other edits, I mentioned my edits. Look at the log, I've added a lot to that page. I've told you before the main problem with AI is the fact it will lie and conjure things up when it's wrong. Do with that what you wish Aradicus77 (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

But you just did mention other edits – "… and different users fix stuff" – as if the two edits we're talking about now are not yours. Buf92 (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Buf92 I'm honestly baffled that any WP editor would actually encourage the use of AI for any reason whatsoever. CAVincent (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any issue with that. No one says to use AI blindly and copy-paste whatever it tells (we always need to double-check what it says). See the difference. IMO, it's still better to consult AI than to make edits unsupported by the original source. Buf92 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Unsupported by the original source? Jon Savage's article was on a music genre, The Feelies are a popular band in that genre, someone who is reading that would assume that was what he was referring to. Then you pointed out he was referring to the brave new world thing, ok problem solved. Why are you acting like that isn't an easy mistake anyone could have made? What's the deal with calling it original research? Aradicus77 (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. You're not very careful with details but are trying to prove you're right. Then why does he mention all the other bands in his article with capital letters in their names, but writes "the feelies" specifically in lowercase? Just a typo? His whole article is written in an exaggerated manner, and "the feelies" serves a reference to feelies from the book Brave New World, meaning the sense of entertainment he gets from all these new post-punk sounds. Buf92 (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Bro this is such a non-argument. Are wikipedia editors not allowed to make mistakes anymore LOL i literally did not oppose your edit and thanked you, what are you talking about Aradicus77 (talk) 19:50, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, this "non-argument" is valid, but you brush it off because "AI lies". Make your mistakes, but remember – with each mistake, Wikipedia loses its reliability, and there's no guarantee others will fix them. Buf92 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Fellow editors aren't enemies you are trying to squash. I've always been open to incorporate your additions, why do you keep trying to paint me as if I'm some kind of runt who is coming in to deface articles and has to be get rid of? You also created your account literally a month ago so why are you acting like you know everything about this siteAradicus77 (talk) 00:31, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that list of artists you've mentioned in your user page may be confusing. Could you elaborate who are they? Ahri Boy (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Pretty obscure most are from soundcloud so it's hard to find results but I think most of them will be on RateYourMusic Aradicus77 (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

The redirect 2000s internet has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 12 § 2000s internet until a consensus is reached. Rusalkii (talk) 19:33, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New musick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eno.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

New wave music

added a link pointing to Zolo

Post-noise

added a link pointing to AOR

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Please re-add the original research banner to the post-noise page until the issues have been resolved. See Help:Maintenance template removal: 'It is not okay to remove maintenance templates until the issue flagged by the template is remedied first—that is, until the maintenance tag is no longer valid—unless it truly did not belong in the first place. Maintenance templates are not to be used to express your personal opinion.'

The article currently has numerous issues, with many instances of you not providing citations for your statements, as well as in other cases you providing citations which do not support the statements. Also see Talk:Post-noise for more information. Echoedits67 (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"Unless it truly did not belong in the first place". What in the article is original research for there to be a banner? I'm only removing it because I added that to No wave a while ago and it was removed with the message "take it to the talk page". Aradicus77 (talk) 12:40, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Large sections of the article consist of statements which are either uncited or provide citations which don't support them. For instance, for a claim like 'post-noise and hypnagogic pop were briefly used interchangeably' you need a source which says something reasonably close to 'post-noise and hypnagogic pop were briefly used interchangeably.'

Wikipedia:Verifiability

'Wikipedia's content is determined by published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it.'

So even if you are sure that a claim like 'post-noise and hypnagogic pop were used interchangeably,' you need a source saying that. You should not simply give examples that you think are using the terms interchangeably. In any case, none of the sources were, but it's not relevant anyway.

and:

Wikipedia:No original research

'[original research] includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.'

The conclusion 'post-noise and hypnagogic pop were used interchangeably' reaches a conclusion not stated by the sources, and thus is original research.

This is just one example, as there are more instances like this in the article that I've found. Echoedits67 (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

After checking the talk page I removed the rest of the information you cited was unsupported and shouldn't be on the article. So again I see no reason for the WP:NOR claim. Most of the information now on the article are youre dits so I'm not sure why you are saying "you providing citations which do not support the statements". It's an ever-evolving article. Aradicus77 (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the instances I pointed out! I appreciate that.

I also appreciate you adding the article, by the way, it's an interesting topic that I've been glad to help expand. It's just we should stick to citing or paraphrasing what's already been written, and a fair bit has been written on this topic. Echoedits67 (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I like your edits. I'm glad there was no friction there, someone else I know ended up adding a bit of info to expand the topic, so I wasn't sure what was original research or what wasn't. Aradicus77 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I think about 85% of what you add is based on first-rate research and have been really delight so thanks:) The problem seems to be the 15% synthesis and the talk page beligerances. I dunno how to resolve this, but to acknowledge your really great contribution so far: my fave being Landfill indie.

I suppose I wish you were more widely read; I get the impression that you are relying on the last source you googled (whether good or bad) and then becoming entrenched from there, not listening and alienating everybody. That makes me sad as you are obviously coming from a good place, and with all that energy, you should be a real asset to the alt/noise rock etc wiki community. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

This is an explanation as to and how it seems and why have been dismissive so far, but hope you time here might be more pleasant in future. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

How do I fix this? That landfill indie page for example I have left open for months and the only substantial edit someone besides me has made was correcting that it was coined in 2007. My approach here was to make the pages and people who are more knowledgeable carry on from there but it seems it takes a while for that to happen. There are glaring ommissions on the music side of Wikipedia like there not being a landfill indie page for over 10 years and chances of someone making it when this topic is no longer relevant in the mainstream is the page not being on here for even longer. But I'm not sure if that's against policy to make pages and not be a total expert. At the moment I'm taking a break with minimal edits (though I'd want to finish Draft:Texas psychedelia and Draft:Don't Call It Punk), something like Don't Call It Punk for example is not something I have been studying for years and would be me reading through the sources mentioning the event and piecing it together for example. I'd like to have help from someone more knowledgeable on areas like that. Aradicus77 (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I think build cred by taking some of your more focused articles to GA - eg can't believe we don't already have an article on Texas psychedelia, tf?? This is where you are excelling atm, and as I say you are doing great wotk on the larger srticles, but seem brittle when things are challenged on talk. But sincerely, overall you have made really great contributions and it's refreshing to see. I just wish you could fit better into the community, and that just maybe a matter of tact. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to see if I can get Post-noise GA nominated. You are right that I fall short when it comes to knowing how to interact with or navigate the community. When I do interact, it is usually in response to someone complaining about an edit I have made, which is why many of my interactions come across as abrasive. Still, I am trying to learn how to handle these disagreements from both perspectives, whether the other editor is wrong or I am.

I think my main problem is that when a disagreement arises, the other editor may begin an edit war and I respond the same way. This has gotten me blocked before. When I have reported similar behavior (i.e Woovee), I have also ended up blocked either way (mainly because I didn't step away from the article for weeks as someone else recommended), and the reverse has happened when others have reported me and both of us get blocked (i.e Buf92). Because of this, I am not sure how to handle genuine friction, such as when someone is angry about an edit choice and exhibits WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior instead of trying to be amicable.

It seems that the best approach is often to step away from the page and let the other editor have it for the time being, which I can do. However, as I saw in the latest Woovee case that you were involved in, this approach does not always work. In that situation, his disruptive edits were preventing the article from being approved for GA so you guys decided to report him straight away (though it was justified, but at the same time you guys did revert him multiple times which also was an edit war? It's confusing you see). The GA process itself feels like a complicated issue, with some editors focusing more on upholding GA standards than on adding new information with reliable sources to grow the article, as I also observed with Buf on the shoegaze article.

I do like the Wikipedia community and I am trying to learn how it works, but there is also contentious politics involved. I am not trying to criticize that so much as observe it from a distance, since my main goal is to create and improve articles rather than engage in edit wars over peripheral issues. Aradicus77 (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

1) I would so dearly love a decent article on Texas psychedelia! Does it go further into the past than Roky? Can we include Trail of Dead? 2) Possibly a weird observation, but I'm going to guess that people who could, say, name off the top of their heads five bands with five different ex-members of Pussy Galore are going to be some level of ADHD/Autistic (and I am absolutely including myself in both that general and specific example), so there is that challenge. 3) I've found myself occasionally being intemperate with other editors. My best advice is that if you find yourself still being frustrated with another editor after one revert, it is a good idea to back away from that editor or article for a few days. There actually are other editors paying attention, even if we don't always respond immediately, and there are editors that actually have noted your (@Aradicus77) valuable contributions. If you are still frustrated and no other editor gets involved, maybe just move to another article. It's only Wikipedia, and the world will survive without knowing about Texas psychedelia, after all. CAVincent (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

re ADHD. Me also. And would include Chat Pile. Ceoil (talk) 12:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Re "so much as observe it from a distance": but you are now part of the community. It will strengthen your argument if you are nicer on the talk and explain your POV rather than disparage... this approach immediately alienates the person you are talking to and will lead to nowhere good. You have enough knowledge to explain your edits, but when you attack the motif of the OP, it's only going to end in disaster and blocks. Trush me; been there.. Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

cI get you, it is at times hard to remember this when someone comes to your talk page with hostility or accusations. As happened today with Echoedits67 but I think we ended up reaching a sort of compromise when I decided to cut down on editing the page we were both editing at the same time and come back to make bigger constructive edits later. Aradicus77 (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

If you nom Landfill indie for GA, would be delighted to do the review. It's a cracking article, and I am very keen that you soften your approach, realise we are not all evil, and become somebody worth collaborating with. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Also choose your battles more wisely; for eg arguing about genres is a black hole timesink; I'm an old punk who was more or less there at the time and never heard of "New Musick" because its a latterly applied description by journalists and has no basis on how the form actually developed. So rather than arguing about ded ends like that with me and us falling out, I derly look forward to the page on Texas psychedelia; especially as have been besotted by this over the last week :) Ceoil (talk) 10:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Yep! I’ve realized that genre arguments are pretty pointless. There’s one on Marquee Moon (song) being tagged as “psychedelic,” but I did not bother reverting it and instead just left my two cents. Genres can be changed and reverted on a whim, and they often depend on what a particular music writer says about a song, even when that writer may not fully know what they are talking about.

As for new musick, admittedly I was not around back then. I do not know what the post-punk scene was like in Ireland, since I was born 30 years later, but I found it interesting how often the term appeared in early magazines and sources. Many pages, such as sceneinbetween or facingproblem on Instagram, regularly post material from that era. Eventually, I read Mimi Haddon’s 2020 book, which is cited frequently in the article I wrote, and I came across a very interesting discussion of the etymology of “new musick.” Where the book and various sources either called it a style of music, an early form of post-punk, a synonym for post-punk or a myriad of other things. Yes I cobbled all these together to form the article, which could be criticized, but I never aimed to "connect dots". But rather have a page where if anyone was as interested as me on the topic could find out about it.

The issue is that this era probably has some of the most confusing genre etymologies ever. It marked the point when journalists’ tendency to “invent” categories, which had already existed in the 1960s, went into overdrive during the 1970s and 1980s. Another complication is that these terms often meant different things depending on where you lived. It is entirely possible that no one ever used the term “new musick” in Ireland, while it circulated through fanzines distributed in cities like Manchester and London.

This is why there is so much confusion around terms such as “new wave.” In the United States, people were using the term in one way, while the UK was doing something different, (i.e Don’t Call It Punk). New musick also had its own internal politics. You have described yourself as an “old punk,” and you might have sided at the time with those who felt that new musick was a snobbish and meaningless term that overcomplicated things, which many people believed back then. At the same time, I think that if reliable sources discuss all of this, it should be integrated into the encyclopedia to provide a broader understanding of post-punk. Aradicus77 (talk) 10:33, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

(((Extremely minor point, but the thought of calling Marquee Moon "psychedelic" just made part of my brain scream in anguish. (Oh, by the way, I was in US West Coast hardcore punk slampits in the 80s, so I'm probably an old punk as well.) CAVincent (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC))))

Re editors like Woovee - you will never win. When people like that complain...deep breath and walk away. Go back cold a few weeks later, calmly explain your point and ping others. ts hard to resist bimbing them, but in the lomg term being the calmone brings people on your side. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cock rock, links pointing to the disambiguation pages were Heavy metal and New Yorkadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Can you please cease the minor, pointless corrections to my edits like removing red links, slightly changing the order of sentences for no reason, and other completely arbitrary changes which only seem to be made to 'correct' me?

They don't improve the quality of the articles at all; why even go out of your way to make them every time I finish editing a page for 10 minutes?

There are so many articles which could be targeted for improvement in different ways, but you have to monitor my edits specifically and make minor, arbitrary edits. I am genuinely asking, why? Echoedits67 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. If you do not want to comply by the manual of style then you are breaking some of the core policies. You have not explained why you add red links to albums and artists that aren't notable enough to be on the site. This is breaking the rules outlined on Wikipedia:REDNO that state "Do not create red links to:

• Articles that are unlikely to be created and retained on Wikipedia, including articles that do not comply with Wikipedia's naming conventions."

Aradicus77 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

They are likely to be created and retained because I am intending to add them shortly,

This is the Manual of Style of Wikipedia. If you do not want to comply by the manual of style then you are breaking some of the core policies.

You were just blocked for a month for breaching one of Wikipedia's actual three content policies (original research). Why do you consider yourself in a position of authority in any way? Echoedits67 (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Josephine Foster's No Harm Done is not notable enough to be on the site. The most notable source is an AllMusic source, the album was never reviewed by sites like Pitchfork to give it more notability. You need a variety of links to make an album page. You right now are trying to use intimidation to stop me from complying by the Manual of Style the site outlines. This is normal procedure to remove stuff from pages that breaks the manual of style. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I was not blocked for original research either. You have just lied. You can see from the log this is what was said. "Proposal: Block them. Block them both". And you can see that the guy who reported me was blocked as well. You seem to want to break the core policies and lie to get your way. I'm being as amicable as possible, but it makes no sense why you are choosing to use these Wikipedia:BATTLEGROUND tactics (accusing me of being in a position of authority when I'm just following the core tenets of the site) for something so common on the site. Keep in mind you have barely been editing on WP, so I am just informing you how things work here. Trying to use a block as a reason to get your way is also misleading. If I reported you for disruptive edits at that page it is possible we both would be blocked and that would be on your record as well for me to use in arguments like these as you are doing now. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

The proposal was to block you over incompetence/breaching original research and verifiability. You were blocked for a month. So yes, that sure looks like being blocked for breaching core policies.

The encyclopedia is supposed to be a collaborative project to gather knowledge. I fail to see how repeatedly hounding another editor's contributions in this way meshes with that whatsoever. I completely ignore the vast majority of the articles you contribute to, while you have recently been 'monitoring' pretty much all of the ones I've been working on (toytown pop, psychedelic folk, freak folk) in this fashion. Echoedits67 (talk) 14:47, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You are lying once again. These were all the statements on "support":

Support: As proposer: This is absurd. Neither seems willing to step back. Give them both a time out to chill. King Lobclaw

Support, actually. Along the lines of "One more out of either of you and I'm pulling this Wikipedia over." Duration to be determined by highly-experienced administrator. Hiobazard

Support - What are we doing here Rambling Rambler Aradicus77 (talk) 14:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

An experienced editor recently interpreted the matter in the same way I am:

Only just noticed you have been blocked for a month for OR. Good. Ceoil (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I don't intend to turn this into a back and forth. Please just let me add information in peace without immediately 'correcting' (and you must admit, sometimes merely to personal preference rather than any policy) all my edits; it's extremely frustrating and I don't do this to you. In fact, since your ANI I've specifically been trying to stay out of your way as not to create any more animosity, yet you insist on constantly interacting with me through edits. Echoedits67 (talk) 15:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

This is the most misleading thing ever, as you can see in this very page that he has come to terms with how I acted and we both apologized. Man get out of here. I'm not talking to you anymore Aradicus77 (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You are using misleading language. I never "hounded" you. I never even acknowledged your presence on the page in a negative manner. I just noticed you kept breaking the manual of style and was informing you this is how pages are written, yet you revert these seemingly with no explanation. You even removed information I added to that page that I had to re-add such as the mention by reliable sources about a "freak folk revival". Again I'm just discussing here, not really fighting. You are twisting all my words for no apparent reason lol. I don't monitor articles either. I make contributions to the music side of Wikipedia. No one owns an article and we are free to add constructive edits to any page. (I added an infobox to toytown pop which it was missing, the lead was also too short, these are all things that another editor would add banners for anyway, so I saved you the trouble of having to remove it).Aradicus77 (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Josephine Foster's No Harm Done is not notable enough to be on the site.

Even if that is true, is that a strong justification to get into yet another fight with another editor? And I'm not talking about just that example. I'm not sure how you can justify arbitrarily switching the order of three sentences with no justification. That was clearly just your personal preference, not an improvement to the content. Echoedits67 (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

You are the one fighting me man. How am I the one fighting? I've been making those sort of edits for ages and no one has ever come to complain. I'm telling you right now that it is possible because you are a new user you haven't become acquainted with rules such as Wikipedia:OVERLINK. You have made a lot of MOS breaches that I haven't come to your talk page over. Yet here you are at my talk page trying to intimidate me into not editing a page everyone is allowed to edit. You yourself are the one making disruptive edits by adding red links. The main reason stuff like that gets removed it's because it ruins readability and it also stops articles from being nominated to GA. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I am genuinely trying to expand the Freak folk page significantly, filling it with info I've gathered from a fair amount of research. But I edit it for a while, take a break for a few minutes, and always find a bunch of arbitrary changes like red links being removed with no justification when I come back. Hasn't there been enough drama arond the WP:OR breaches in December? Echoedits67 (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I have told you over 3 times why red links are being removed. Everytime I make an edit summary I post a link to Wikipedia:REDNO. Aradicus77 (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Aradicus, it's not worth edit warring over a MoS violation. Fixing non-compliances with MoS is not listed as one of the exemptions to the edit warring policy. The MoS is not a hardcore policy (it is actually a guideline, and it says editors "should" follow it, not "must"). Policy ≠ guideline. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

That user was one of the people working with Buf92 during that ANI submission. They are now currently reporting me themselves to get me blocked even though after I thanked you for leaving this message. I didn't really edit Freak folk regarding MOS and more so was to add information. I even left the article for a few hours to work on other articles only to see that I've been reported now. Please take a look, thank you. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:11, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

The appeal of your topic ban was unsuccessful. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:56, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:Kansai no wave, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - ExcitedA. It may be a good idea to look at this. 19:50, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

??? Aradicus77 (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Looks like a simple error (the nominator has 787 edits, so is learning). Like the reasons "hoax" and "incoherent material not written in English, badly translated material" make no sense. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:New York punk, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Echoedits67 (talk) 14:12, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

Good morning! Just FYI, there is no limit to the number of GAs you can submit. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:10, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I did a quick google search and it said there was. Thanks for the heads up I'll add some then Aradicus77 (talk) 17:21, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Shoegaze is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

nice taste

RTSthestardust (talk) 04:01, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hyperpop is under review. See the review page for more information. This may take up to 7 days; feel free to contact the reviewer with any questions you might have. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dizzycheekchewer -- Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 18:23, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Involuntary celibacy".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dimes Square, a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Dare was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi Aradicus77. Thank you for your work on Post-Internet (music). Another editor, Hawkeye7, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

A couple of citations are required. I have tagged them for you.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Hawkeye7}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:28, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: What are the citations required? Aradicus77 (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

You've added them, so I have re-graded the article as B class. Great work! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:22, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

		The Surreal Barnstar
		out of all the music enthusiasts I've encountered on this site, you are by far the most knowledgeable--and therefore the most capable of shedding light on the more overlooked sides of music history. keep up the lovely work expanding on articles!

𓃮elm she/they ^{(mMRRROW! | pawprints)} 15:19, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for this it means a lot to me! ❤️❤️❤️ Aradicus77 (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

You are more than welcome! I wish you a swell rest of the day <3 𓃮elm she/they ^{(mMRRROW! | pawprints)} 16:08, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Digicore, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Deep-fried (meme), a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Minivan rock, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lofty305, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:08, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Re your message: No, it needs to be properly sourced. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:55, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hi, this editor is continuing their disruptive editing, now vandalising another talkpage. Do you want me to file an ANI report or are you going to? AusLondonder (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Yeah I think you should do it if you are intending to. Think everything I posted on the COI report is enough evidence of his disruptive behavior Aradicus77 (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the COI noticeboard "is for determining whether a specific editor has a conflict of interest (COI) for a specific article and whether an edit by a COIN-declared COI editor meets a requirement of the Conflict of Interest guideline." It doesn't really address behavioural problems and disruptive editing. AusLondonder (talk) 16:12, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The user has declared themselves to be LaPuff so I thought COI would be better suited as well after the recommendation of another user: @AusLondonder Aradicus77 (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ive started at thread at ANI, see Editor WP:NOTHERE, engaging in vile personal attacks. AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Greek Weird Wave, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Aradicus77. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Six Years: The Dematerialization of the Art Object, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:08, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Are you seriously North Korean? i thought your country had like a completely different internet. I imagine you must be using a VPN or proxy or something. Just kind of wild to me if that's not a joke Lil Happy Lil Sad ^:): 16:30, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

No it's just a Yabujin reference because he had that on his SoundCloud LOL Aradicus77 (talk) 16:38, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Glitch pop albums indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not introduce links to draft articles in actual articles, as you did to The Parable of Arable Land. Since a draft is not yet ready for the main article space, it is not in shape for ordinary readers, and links from articles should not go to a draft. Such links are contrary to the Manual of Style. These links have been removed. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 12:02, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sire-Records-PUNK.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Hyperpop has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Dizzycheekchewer -- Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sire-Records-PUNK.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:35, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Please indicate if your topic bans have changed, thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Someone on the most recent thread said Im not allowed to edit the Red Krayola page but did not say this applied to album pages. But if it does then what do I do next? Since I was told to wait 6 months and I did then I appealed but because of a now banned user was having to wait again and its been around 4 months since then (December) I will appeal again 2 months from now. (Most of my edits as you can see have been about disparate topics not connected to the topic ban at all and you can see the original appeal discussion) Aradicus77 (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

I would think that your topic ban applies to all Red Krayola pages, as that is usually the practice. You should clear this up with the involved editors since you appear to have violated your ban. Cheers. Caro7200 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Who are the involved editors? Aradicus77 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you started draft:zoomergaze. Would it be cool with you if I contributed in the future? Issan Sumisu (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah sure I saw that VICE just recently put out an article on the movement so its getting more coverage. At the moment I did just copy paste most of what you added, but looking to change it from what is already on the shoegaze article. Aradicus77 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article Shoegaze has failed. See the review page for more information. If or when the reviewer's feedback has been addressed, you may nominate the article again. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ceoil -- Ceoil (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Post-industrial (music genre) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6#This redirect targets List of industrial music genres, however Post-industrial (music) targets the more general Industrial music. Both target pages have sections which discuss Post-industrial music. Given how similar the titles of these redirects are, I think they should target the same section. However, it is unclear to me which target is preferable.|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 6 § This redirect targets List of industrial music genres, however Post-industrial (music) targets the more general Industrial music. Both target pages have sections which discuss Post-industrial music. Given how similar the titles of these redirects are, I think they should target the same section. However, it is unclear to me which target is preferable.]] until a consensus is reached.

Uffda608 (talk) 10:01, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Category:Dimes Square has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Gjs238 (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Incelcore is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Incelcore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

ILoveSmallEdits (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Krautrock, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Berlin School was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 15 March 2026 (UTC)