Revision as of 02:37, 15 March 2015 editBryce Carmony (talk | contribs)2,039 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 14:08, 25 May 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
(126 intermediate revisions by 22 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== Just a little template for you. == | |||
{{Talkback|Aladdin Sane|Request for perspective}} | |||
I'm really unclear about what, if anything, the ping template does. Oh, well. —] (]) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
===Talk of the town=== | |||
== Your 8,000 merger proposals == | |||
In case you wondered, the above is a song reference from my generation. From the disam page: "Talk of the Town", a 1980 song by ]. | |||
I didn't really mean it at first, but you are being discussed at "]". The "you" in the title refers to Rjensen, not Bryce Carmony. The discussion, however, does, as it descends from the ANI. As I might have said there, "Shocking, just shocking" (a reference to the movie '']''), and meant both sardonically and in a diminutive sense, as was the original quote. —] (]) 11:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. ] ] 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving ] where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. ] (]) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:*A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. ] ] 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin. | |||
:You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a ] argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better. —] (]) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. ] (]) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== |
== ] == | ||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] (]) 21:08, 14 March 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-vblock --> | |||
Still want to delete?♦ ] 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
*All the sources for the article are either 1-primary sources from the topic, or 2 - non reliable. i haven't changed my mind on the content. ] (]) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
There was recently a ] which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see ]). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{tl|coatrack}} at the top of the article ]. --] (]) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
{{unblock reviewed|reason= 5 albert square has refused to assume good faith, he says that I am WP:POINTY but doesn't say which edits are disruptive he just uses the ambiguous claim. I request that future bans come from a different admin since 5 Albert square bans for personal reasons instead of what is best for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)|decline=Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
:As it says, '''Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.'''. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== A cookie for you! == | |||
{{unblock|reason=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)}} | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
] and ] are why women don't edit wikipedia. admin abuse like theirs | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
:How is that relevant? 5AS is female, and personally, I am in no way deterred by her and Jp-I admire them. You can't argue that they discriminate against you because you are female, because your user page shows that you appear to be male. Also, I believe the personal attack is your opinion that 5AS doesn't assume good faith and that she bans for personal reasons. ]<sup>]]</sup> 00:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! --''']''' (]) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
==Invitation to WikiProject TAFI== | |||
5AS banned me for "edit warring" when I created a discussion in a talk page, got 2 yays and no noes, and changed one single word. other admins said " it doesn't matter if that word is there..." but when I removed it. 5as banned me for edit warring. I am banned for "disruptive editing" yet she can't be bothered to cite a single example. All I have done is started discussions on a few mergers. and worked on some criticism pages, but instead of wondering about NPOV, all she thinks is how to use a ban as a cudgel, the decline of wikipedia since 2008 can be placed squarely at the feet of the admins who create a enviroment so hostile that editors decline and women even more so. How does she assume good faith when she says " merger proposals are disruptive so you're banned" when there is no guideline against merger proposals. ( espiecally when WP:NPOV encourages not to have the split in the first place ) the hostility of Misplaced Pages is why women don't edit. Jp and 5as are why editor counts are lower than they were years ago. this isn't a personal attack, who they are as people is irrelavent. This is just about their actions. if your actions aren't founded in policy then what else could the be founded in ? oh that's right, something personal not policy. ] (]) 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
{| style="background:#FFFFFF; border:3px solid #000080; padding: 10px; width: 100%" | |||
admins like to delude themselves and say "ban hammer" as if they're using a tool to forge something better. but it's just the ban cudgel, a weapon that requires no discipline or skill and is wielded by thugs and low lifes for petty extortion and to get conformity. WP:POINTY (which I would argue I didn't even violate ) can be ignored if you are improving wikipedia ( promoting and moving towards a stronger NPOV I would argue is improving wikipedia ) but Ignore all rules, Be bold, NPOV, assume good faith, admins don't care about them. the ratio of editors to articles is going down every day, it's easy to see why. I try and create a wikipedia that is welcoming to everyone, people who disagree with me I don't go and say to an admin (this person should be banned) no, I reason with them and respect them. because every editor is important because we need every single one of them. ] (]) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
:Could you link to the discussion you were blocked for edit warring in? The point of this block is that you do not seem to be looking at the reasons that the criticism articles were split from the main in all cases; for example, in ], the merger would create a page which blows the article length guidelines right out of the metaphorical water. We are working as a whole on making Misplaced Pages a more welcoming place to edit; I'm sure you see the banners to the IdeaLab discussions on this very topic. I don't find the Wiki hostile at all, and their actions are based in policy because your mergers seem to be disruptive and making a ]. The entire point of all these discussions is that you seem to be making mergers of "Criticism of ..." left and right instead of taking a look at the articles individually. ]<sup>]]</sup> 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|rowspan=2| ] | |||
::You are the kind of person who makes it hostile. why do you go to admin pages and say " I think we should ban this personf or this" because you're a hostile person. Do you know why Article Size is not the 6th pillar? why of the 5 most important things to wikipedia article size is not one of them? becuase it's a secondary concern. NPOV is non-negotiable. it's not bypassable by consensus. it's the bedrock of our very existince. When you read WP:NPOV you're telling me that the inturpretation you have is " we should seperate articles by pov criticism vs non criticism instead of by topic (History of Facebook, Facebook Litigation, Facebook Controversies, Facebook Labor Relations, Facebook Privacy Policy. ) We can make appropriately sized articles on topics instead of POV. but you and the cudgel club aren't interested in that. the second POV gets hard you say forget it. ] (]) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
::The difference between me and you is I assume good faith, you don't. I assume that while I think your attempts are misguided that you hold wikipedias interest closest to your heart. so I try and reason with you, I try and explain my side to you, and understand your side. what I don't do is assume that you're a "disruption" or a "vandal" which is why I don't go around to admins and say " ban this person" becuase I believe in good faith. all I ask from the admins and from you is the same good faith. When I say "This is what NPOV says this is how I think we can improve NPOV" maybe instead of banning me you could consider it. but that would require you to be less hostile. ] (]) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|{{color|#000080|Hello, Bryce Carmony}}. You're invited to join '''{{LinkColor|blue|Misplaced Pages:Today's articles for improvement| WikiProject Today's articles for improvement}}'''. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's ] page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's ]. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of ]. --''']''' (]) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
*Bryce, I think you've missed the point here by a country mile. You weren't blocked for personal attacks, but you've since made quite a few here, questioning people's competence and calling them abusive with no real evidence. You were blocked for disruptive editing, because you proposed a HUGE number of merger requests at a rapid rate - a rate so high, that it was very clear that you had made no attempt to look at exactly ''why'' the pages had been split in the first place. A couple of editors (including myself) came here suggesting that you slow down and actually check what you were doing, and not only did you not do so in any sense, you rejected some people's comments with descriptions such as and - completely inappropriately, as those were neither spam nor harassment. I ended up disengaging from you in the above section because you simply ], and that is a key issue here. Your editing ''was'' disruptive, because you were proposing a huge number of merger requests in a very short timeframe. Not only that, but simultaneously, you were blanking content from some of the articles with no rationale whatsoever, or with very poor rationales. I mean, "Google has received criticism for its Gmail service." - really? That's supposed to be sufficient ''how'', exactly? ] ] 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
::I wasn't blanking content. the "criticism of Gmail" article had multiple paragraphs that were word for word identical to the "criticism of google" why have 2 articles with the exact same content? so I took the ocntent form "criticism of google" and put it on "criticism of gmail" if it wasn't already there. and kept the duplicate information there. so when you say " blank it out" that's not accurate in the slightest. No one here says " the reason we banned you was becuase you violated npov" and no one says " I say no to this merger becuase I think including both sides of a story would violate npov". I haven't made a single "personal attack". if I say "you are not showing good faith" that isn't a "personal attack" if I say " you are fat and smell funny and no one likes you" that's a person attack. when I say " you lie about me blanking pages" that's not a perosnal attack. thats me stating that you are misrepresenting events. if you believe in your heart of hearts that NPOV = banning criticism from main articles and putting all "criticism" (including things that aren't criticism like controversies, lawsuits, competitors that open business , etc ) then say it. say that you think that's what NPOV is. ] (]) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
::the definition of disruption is now "you tried to write too many wrongs" when the article says disruption is when you intentionally do something wrong to prove a point. I didn't do anything wrong. I read Misplaced Pages Merging that's what it suggested. I'm sorry if you're a google fanboy and the idea of allowing two sides in the main article is hurtful. if you edit with an agenda you should work on different articles. Any editor who's goal it is to ban other editors and then brags about it and then goes aorund saying people have a "death" wish. that is harassment. ] (]) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Misplaced Pages == | |||
::*Firstly, you haven't been ''banned'', you've been blocked temporarily. There is quite a large difference there. Secondly, exactly how is "user:5 albert square and user:Jpgordon are why women don't edit wikipedia. admin abuse like theirs" anything ''other'' than a personal attack? That's a pretty horrendous slur on their character. And, yes, obviously wrong accusations of lying ''are'' personal attacks. Likewise, there is a big difference between reducing duplication (which is fine, within reason), and just removing ''everything'' and leaving such a useless sentence behind. There should be ''some'' redundancy; the Criticism of Google page should have a rough summary of the most notable/frequent Gmail criticisms. I have no idea what your crusade is here... but almost all of these articles were created to be as close to NPOV as possible. The ''titles'' are not neutral, but if a criticism article is done properly, then it should have responses to the criticisms, be it first-party or third-party, and how these things were dealt with. When this is the case - which it often is - then the articles ''are'' compliant with NPOV. And this is one of the key issues with your actions - the rapid rate of the merger requests shows that you have not made ''a single attempt'' to analyse each article's contents, its history, and why it was created in the first place. As the proposer of a change, this means that you have completely failed to comply with ], and you have ''done so repeatedly''. Also - how in the world does advocating for the existence of a criticism page make me a "fanboy" of that product? Logic would dictate the exact opposite of that! And it would ''still'' be rubbish. I have no agenda here, other than preventing disruption to Misplaced Pages... quite how you can claim others have agendas, when all bar '''two''' edits that you have made in mainspace since February have been related to these criticism articles, is beyond belief. ] ] 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
::Let me help you make the distinction with an example " Barack obama has big ears and looks dumb when he smiles" thats an attack about him, the person "Barack obama abuses his presidential authority when he has american citizens executed without trial via drone strike" that is a criticism about him in his capacity as president of the united states, of course it is directed him the person who is president. but it's not a "personal attack" if I said " JP morgon looks dumb and I bet he sucks at ukulele" that would be a peronal attack. if I say " I don't think JPgordon is a good admin" that is not a personal attack. ] (]) 02:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
You are being contacted because of your participation in the ]. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the ]. ] (]) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Checking in == | |||
Hi Bryce! I just wanted to check in. How have things been going for you since ]? I must say, I'm impressed with your continued commitment to the 'Pedia, and professional demeanor on ]. I don't doubt that you're an excellent editor, so I want to make sure that nothing has turned you off of editing. Do you feel any less stressed by other editors? Or do you feel like hitting your head against the wall at present? ;-) – ] <small><sup>(] | ])</sup></small> 01:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Beatles == | |||
The Beatles were a band. See and please stop blindly reverting. ''']''' 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:: Discussing articles in userspace instead of the articles talk page is an attempt to circumvent consensus, if you have a disagreement about an article you can write about it in the articles talk page.] (]) 04:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The consensus has been to use "were" forever. The only one undermining anything is you. The fact that you didn't even respond to the substance of my comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about. ''']''' 04:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::Do you have a citation of the beatles being more than one band? if you do I'd love to add it to the article if not you are creating original research which is problematic. NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to a fringe theory that the Beatles are multiple bands and NPOV is immune from consensus.] (]) 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::: Hello. I'm from England and what we're debating here is the difference between British English and American English. We are - as the old saying goes - peoples divided by a common language. I believe the consensus is that British bands "are" and American bands "is" on Misplaced Pages. In England we wouldn't say the Beatles "was", we would say the Beatles "were". Similarly, we wouldn't say Coldplay "is a band", we would say Coldplay "are a band" because Coldplay constitutes more than one person. Same with Genesis. Hope that helps. ] (]) 15:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
I'm glad it got sorted out at The Beatles but please don't take it too far in the other direction. Generally in the U.S., the verb used with sports teams follows the nominal number of the team's name - so, Washington Redskins "are", but Minnesota Wild "is". See ]. Thanks. ] (]) 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Per ] Despite exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular. ] (]) 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
::I think that the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style concerning plurals - which specifically addresses this precise point - should determine how plurals are treated in Misplaced Pages articles. Don't start (another) edit war. Thanks. ] (]) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Utah Jazz was Are before you changed it so the "war" was actually started by you. check your history on the article. ] (]) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::I've made precisely 2 edits to that page - at least since 2013 - and both of them were to revert your "are" to "is". I'm afraid you are mistaken on that count. ] (]) 02:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
== October 2015 == | |||
] Please stop your ], as you did at ]. Your edits have been ] or removed. | |||
* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through ]. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being ]. ''Carrying on with your war on singular and plural usage by making a further clumsy and unwarranted edit - while the matter is under discussion at ANI - is clearly deliberately disruptive. ''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
*This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have proposed at ANI that you be blocked. ] (]) 07:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
] This is your '''only warning'''; if you ] Misplaced Pages again, as you did at ], you may be '''] without further notice'''. <!-- Template:uw-vandalism4im --> ] (]) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
I have had a look through your contributions. Frankly, you seem to go right up to the line of being blatantly disruptive without ever crossing it. In particular, you seem to get tied up in the sort of thing documented at ], which should give you a good indication that what you frequently you argue over is not really that important. I don't think you're at the level of causing blatant and imminent disruption to warrant a block, but I will support the community's decision to block you, which means you have some serious work to do now if you are to avoid losing your editing privileges. I would start by apologising to the people mentioned in this section and admit that you got over-heated and argued about things that weren't important - that would be a start to regaining some respect. ] ] ] 12:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:I'm not looking to cause an edit war.what confuses me is why people simply refuse to use article talk pages. I have people who (evidently) disagree with me but instead of posting why they disagree in the article talk page instead they go to ANI or something else. The talk page process works. I'm not one to disagree with consensus but I am one to seek it. the Utah Jazz were "Are" for years before I got involved now that I say it should be "are" there are threats of blocks. I think edits like AndyJSmith are simply out with a personal grudge. since he had no problem with the wording Are until now. I'm sorry if anyones feelings were hurt by me using English conventions to make subjects and verbs agree. If you disagree with a particular edit use the talk page would be my suggestion. ] (]) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
== Disruptive editing over "are" and "is" == | |||
Please stop your repeated disruptive editing over "are" and "is" in connection with bands. Regardless of what you think on this matter Misplaced Pages's own Manual of Style is quite clear on this issue. Here is the relevant section at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bryce_Carmony&action=edit§ion=new : | |||
"Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, ''The Beatles are a well-known band''; ''The Seahawks are the champions'', with one major exception: in American English, the ''United States'' is almost universally used with a singular verb. Although the construction the ''United States are'' was more common early in the history of the country, as the singular federal government exercised more authority and a singular national identity developed (especially following the American Civil War) it became standard to treat the United States as a singular noun." | |||
It is evident, therefore, that "The Beach Boys are" is correct grammar in American English. ] (]) 12:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:the title of a single entity is singular in English, let me help you out. The united nations is a thing. The grapes of wrath is a book. The son's of anarchy is a biker gang. Guns n Roses is a band. US Marshals is a law enforcement agency. League of Legends is a video game. and yes The Carpenters is a band. If you ask yourself this simple question you say 1st - Is the title of the band a title? yes, secondly. Is the band a single entity? yes. Then we use the singular was not the plural were. the majority of bands even those in the plural use the correct is/was only the minority have editors who are using this incorrectly. I get that it sounds counter intuitive but it is correct. in AmE the titles of Singular entities use the singular verb. ] (]) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::You are still missing the point. As the Manual of Style makes clear, when the name of a band or a sporting team includes a plural noun, such as "Eagles", then it is then not treated as a single entity (a band or team) but as a plural entity (a number of people). This principle is not difficult to understand. ] (]) 15:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::The example is reffering to individual members, which is why they said champions. The individual seahawk players are the individual champions. The example does not , and would not say that the Seahawks are a Franchise owned by Paul Allen. Since Paul Allen does not own the individual players, he owns the entity as a whole. If we are referring to the beach boys as individuals we say are. But if we are referring to the title of their band like the first sentence of the article about that band is. We say is. Many bands do this (The Black Eyed Peas, the Wall Flowers, Guns and Roses, etc) It might confuse you but it's sound grammar. | |||
::::You are mistaken and are indulging in "]" in your inability to understand why you are mistaken. ] (]) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::So you would say "The Seahawks are a trademark" you would truly in your heart of hearts write that. "The Beatles are a trademark". You are incapable of understanding that the singular entity of the band =/= the individual members of the band at all times. ] (]) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::Irrelevant argument. In these examples you are referring to the words "The Seahawks" and "The Beatles" and not to the collective nouns. Different principle, different grammar. Should be obvious. ] (]) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Oh so the aritcle "Bread (band)" is about the band bread but the article "the Carpenters" is about the members of the band the carpenters. That makes TOTAL sense. Keep in mind that when an article title can be singular or plural that the title of the article is singular per ]. if the carpenters of the article is the singular carpenters we're talking about the band not the members of the band. ] (]) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::This says it all about your erroneous arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoKWf6pLs8 ] (]) 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::So the argument that titles are singular is erroneous? ] (]) 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::The real issue, the one you keep missing the point of, is not about "singular" or "plural" nouns but about "]s". ] (]) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::The title of the article is not a collective noun, it's the title of a singular entity. per WP:Title titles should be singular, so where we have the choice we chose the singular title over the collective noun. the article "The Cranberries" is a singular title for the band... you guessed it... the Cranberries. if you want to make an exception for bands to be plural titles you can argue it in the WP page but I don't think consensus will follow that. ] (]) 00:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::: I would like to add mny voice to the requests for ] to stop changing "were" to "was" or "are" to "is" in band articles. As noted by ], these group names are '''collective nouns''' and so the use of "was" or "is" in this case is grammatically incorrect. This is just basic English grammar for heaven's sake! In addition, I would ask that Bryce Carmony go back through the large number of articles that you've altered in this way over the past few days and revert your edits back to the grammatically correct form. --] (]) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::: In addition to my above response, band names like "The Byrds" are the name of a band - a singular entity - but still a collective noun for that particular group of musicians. If you take a look at ], you'll see that "The Byrds are..." or "The Byrds were" is correct, in both American English and British English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun and a collective noun, which "Byrds" is, then "are" or "were" is grammatically correct. Really though, this is just common sense and it's also supported by the style guides of countless other print or online music publications. --] (]) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::::::::::::::You're confused. just because something '''''can''''' be a collective noun doesn't mean that it always is. Pop-tarts is a brand of food = Title of Singular Entity. Pop tarts are delicious! = Collective noun of al the worlds pop-tarts. So the question is what is the title of the article? is the title of the article the singular title of the entity or is it the collective noun? and WP:Titles informs us that it is preferable that it be the singular entity. so when we refer to the band we are referring to the title of the singular entity not the collective noun. Which is why we don't say "Pop-tarts are a brand" or "The cranberries are a band"] (]) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::::::::::::WP:Titles says we shouldn't use the collective noun as the title and use the singular entity. if you have a problem with that policy you can propose a change to that policy, you can't cherry pick what policies you will and will not follow. ] (]) 00:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:Yeah...I'm not cherry picking and you're wrong about the correct use of "was" or "is" with regards to this. Whether the article title is a singular entity or the collective noun is irrelevant, it's the use of "was" or "is" in the context of the opening sentence of the article, in which the band is clearly a collective noun, that is in dispute. But regardless of that, I've just seen this: ]. I don't think there's much more to say here. You're a disruptive editor who will not accept editor consensus or repeated warnings. Therefore, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. I'll let the admins make a decision about this. --] (]) 00:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
::It isn't. In BrE all bands are always collective nounds. "Supertramp are a band" not "is a band" because in English we always use the collective noun for a band. in AmE we don't HAVE to use the collective noun for a band. we can treat it as a singular entity (which the title and subsequently introduction line do) Would you argue that a band like... "Bread" be "Bread are a band" since you insist on treating bands as collective nouns. or do you only sometimes insist on bands to be collective nouns? if so, why? Why should we sometimes treat a band as a collective noun and sometimes not treat it when both scenarios are being introduced as the topic of the article? so some topics are about the bands? and some are about the individual band members? makes zero sense. ] (]) 01:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::Your most recent comments only further demonstrate your invincible ignorance on this question. If a band's name is both a plural noun and a collective noun then it is grammatically correct to use "were" and "are" etc. Which part of this straightforward grammatical principle don't you understand? Your ] analogy with Pop Tarts is erroneous. On this issue you are not properly informed or competent. ] (]) 01:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::: Would you write "AC/DC are a band" "Metalica are a band" "Styx are a band" "Journey are a band" etc? If you are arguing that all bands must all be treated as collective verbs always then let me know. or are you saying "I want to only treat bands as collective nouns sometimes depending on my arbitrary mood" let me know. WP:Titles promotes my posiion, where as you have no policy basis to argue for saying "are a band" when the name of the band is a title of a singular unit. ] (]) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::You've just proven my point again about your invincible ignorance. These band names are '''not BOTH''' plural nouns and collective nouns. Therefore, in American English, the verb forms of "were" and "are" would not be correct (but can be in British English) unlike plural and collective names such as "Eagles" and "Carpenters". Your repeated inability to understand these obvious distinctions is disturbing. ] (]) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
:::::: Let's simplify this. do you believe that a title for a singular entity should use the singular verb? yes or no. we'll take this one step at a time and find where the disconnect is.] (]) 03:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC) | |||
. | |||
== October 2015: <s>]</s> Blocked == | |||
Per , you have been indefinitely <s>banned</s> blocked from editing. The consensus here is that your efforts constitute ] Indefinite does not mean infinitely, but I would suggest you wait at least a year before appealing this block <s>and ban</s>, and '''strongly''' suggest you not attempt a return in under 6 months. Hopefully the time away and some perspective will provide some insight on the collaborative nature of the project. You can read <s>]</s> ] and ] for details. — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 05:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) <small>edited for accuracy — <small><span class="nowrap" style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)</small> | |||
== New entry for your coffee table book category == | |||
Hi Bryce, | |||
Representing several fan club members of West Coast Midnight Run™ we thought you may want to add the title of the publication to your Coffee Table Book page. The publication is along the lines of an art book/coffee table book with strong qualities influenced by lifestyle and entertainment magazines. We invite you to look them up and contact their editors for more information if they qualify. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Latest revision as of 14:08, 25 May 2022
Just a little template for you.
Hello, Bryce Carmony. You have new messages at Aladdin Sane's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I'm really unclear about what, if anything, the ping template does. Oh, well. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Talk of the town
In case you wondered, the above is a song reference from my generation. From the disam page: "Talk of the Town", a 1980 song by The Pretenders.
I didn't really mean it at first, but you are being discussed at "I mentioned you as a contrary reference on my User talk page.". The "you" in the title refers to Rjensen, not Bryce Carmony. The discussion, however, does, as it descends from the ANI. As I might have said there, "Shocking, just shocking" (a reference to the movie Casablanca), and meant both sardonically and in a diminutive sense, as was the original quote. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Flame of Peace
Still want to delete?♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:31, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
- All the sources for the article are either 1-primary sources from the topic, or 2 - non reliable. i haven't changed my mind on the content. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Melee
There was recently a deletion debate which you took part. The debate continues on the talk page of the article (see talk:Melee). Please join the debate so that a consensus can be reached on the initial issues of whether it is appropriate to include the maintenance {{coatrack}} at the top of the article Melee. --PBS-AWB (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
A cookie for you!
Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! --Bananasoldier (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC) |
Invitation to WikiProject TAFI
Hello, Bryce Carmony. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC) |
Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Misplaced Pages
You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Checking in
Hi Bryce! I just wanted to check in. How have things been going for you since our discussion? I must say, I'm impressed with your continued commitment to the 'Pedia, and professional demeanor on your user page. I don't doubt that you're an excellent editor, so I want to make sure that nothing has turned you off of editing. Do you feel any less stressed by other editors? Or do you feel like hitting your head against the wall at present? ;-) – voidxor 01:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Beatles
The Beatles were a band. See and please stop blindly reverting. Calidum 04:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Discussing articles in userspace instead of the articles talk page is an attempt to circumvent consensus, if you have a disagreement about an article you can write about it in the articles talk page.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus has been to use "were" forever. The only one undermining anything is you. The fact that you didn't even respond to the substance of my comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Calidum 04:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a citation of the beatles being more than one band? if you do I'd love to add it to the article if not you are creating original research which is problematic. NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to a fringe theory that the Beatles are multiple bands and NPOV is immune from consensus.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello. I'm from England and what we're debating here is the difference between British English and American English. We are - as the old saying goes - peoples divided by a common language. I believe the consensus is that British bands "are" and American bands "is" on Misplaced Pages. In England we wouldn't say the Beatles "was", we would say the Beatles "were". Similarly, we wouldn't say Coldplay "is a band", we would say Coldplay "are a band" because Coldplay constitutes more than one person. Same with Genesis. Hope that helps. Rodericksilly (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you have a citation of the beatles being more than one band? if you do I'd love to add it to the article if not you are creating original research which is problematic. NPOV requires that we don't give undue weight to a fringe theory that the Beatles are multiple bands and NPOV is immune from consensus.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- The consensus has been to use "were" forever. The only one undermining anything is you. The fact that you didn't even respond to the substance of my comment shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Calidum 04:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Discussing articles in userspace instead of the articles talk page is an attempt to circumvent consensus, if you have a disagreement about an article you can write about it in the articles talk page.Bryce Carmony (talk) 04:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad it got sorted out at The Beatles but please don't take it too far in the other direction. Generally in the U.S., the verb used with sports teams follows the nominal number of the team's name - so, Washington Redskins "are", but Minnesota Wild "is". See Misplaced Pages:Manual_of_Style#Plurals. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 11:01, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Per Comparison of American and British English Despite exceptions such as usage in The New York Times, the names of sports teams are usually treated as plurals even if the form of the name is singular. Bryce Carmony (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style concerning plurals - which specifically addresses this precise point - should determine how plurals are treated in Misplaced Pages articles. Don't start (another) edit war. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Utah Jazz was Are before you changed it so the "war" was actually started by you. check your history on the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've made precisely 2 edits to that page - at least since 2013 - and both of them were to revert your "are" to "is". I'm afraid you are mistaken on that count. JohnInDC (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Utah Jazz was Are before you changed it so the "war" was actually started by you. check your history on the article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:36, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I think that the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style concerning plurals - which specifically addresses this precise point - should determine how plurals are treated in Misplaced Pages articles. Don't start (another) edit war. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
October 2015
Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Tunnel boom. Your edits have been reverted or removed.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Carrying on with your war on singular and plural usage by making a further clumsy and unwarranted edit - while the matter is under discussion at ANI - is clearly deliberately disruptive. Andyjsmith (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- This is a courtesy notice to inform you that I have proposed at ANI that you be blocked. BethNaught (talk) 07:05, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at A II Z, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Andyjsmith (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
I have had a look through your contributions. Frankly, you seem to go right up to the line of being blatantly disruptive without ever crossing it. In particular, you seem to get tied up in the sort of thing documented at Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars#Wording, which should give you a good indication that what you frequently you argue over is not really that important. I don't think you're at the level of causing blatant and imminent disruption to warrant a block, but I will support the community's decision to block you, which means you have some serious work to do now if you are to avoid losing your editing privileges. I would start by apologising to the people mentioned in this section and admit that you got over-heated and argued about things that weren't important - that would be a start to regaining some respect. Ritchie333 12:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not looking to cause an edit war.what confuses me is why people simply refuse to use article talk pages. I have people who (evidently) disagree with me but instead of posting why they disagree in the article talk page instead they go to ANI or something else. The talk page process works. I'm not one to disagree with consensus but I am one to seek it. the Utah Jazz were "Are" for years before I got involved now that I say it should be "are" there are threats of blocks. I think edits like AndyJSmith are simply out with a personal grudge. since he had no problem with the wording Are until now. I'm sorry if anyones feelings were hurt by me using English conventions to make subjects and verbs agree. If you disagree with a particular edit use the talk page would be my suggestion. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Disruptive editing over "are" and "is"
Please stop your repeated disruptive editing over "are" and "is" in connection with bands. Regardless of what you think on this matter Misplaced Pages's own Manual of Style is quite clear on this issue. Here is the relevant section at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Bryce_Carmony&action=edit§ion=new :
"Proper nouns that are plural in form take a plural verb in both AmE and BrE; for example, The Beatles are a well-known band; The Seahawks are the champions, with one major exception: in American English, the United States is almost universally used with a singular verb. Although the construction the United States are was more common early in the history of the country, as the singular federal government exercised more authority and a singular national identity developed (especially following the American Civil War) it became standard to treat the United States as a singular noun."
It is evident, therefore, that "The Beach Boys are" is correct grammar in American English. Afterwriting (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- the title of a single entity is singular in English, let me help you out. The united nations is a thing. The grapes of wrath is a book. The son's of anarchy is a biker gang. Guns n Roses is a band. US Marshals is a law enforcement agency. League of Legends is a video game. and yes The Carpenters is a band. If you ask yourself this simple question you say 1st - Is the title of the band a title? yes, secondly. Is the band a single entity? yes. Then we use the singular was not the plural were. the majority of bands even those in the plural use the correct is/was only the minority have editors who are using this incorrectly. I get that it sounds counter intuitive but it is correct. in AmE the titles of Singular entities use the singular verb. Bryce Carmony (talk) 15:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are still missing the point. As the Manual of Style makes clear, when the name of a band or a sporting team includes a plural noun, such as "Eagles", then it is then not treated as a single entity (a band or team) but as a plural entity (a number of people). This principle is not difficult to understand. Afterwriting (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The example is reffering to individual members, which is why they said champions. The individual seahawk players are the individual champions. The example does not , and would not say that the Seahawks are a Franchise owned by Paul Allen. Since Paul Allen does not own the individual players, he owns the entity as a whole. If we are referring to the beach boys as individuals we say are. But if we are referring to the title of their band like the first sentence of the article about that band is. We say is. Many bands do this (The Black Eyed Peas, the Wall Flowers, Guns and Roses, etc) It might confuse you but it's sound grammar.
- You are mistaken and are indulging in "invincible ignorance" in your inability to understand why you are mistaken. Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you would say "The Seahawks are a trademark" you would truly in your heart of hearts write that. "The Beatles are a trademark". You are incapable of understanding that the singular entity of the band =/= the individual members of the band at all times. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Irrelevant argument. In these examples you are referring to the words "The Seahawks" and "The Beatles" and not to the collective nouns. Different principle, different grammar. Should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh so the aritcle "Bread (band)" is about the band bread but the article "the Carpenters" is about the members of the band the carpenters. That makes TOTAL sense. Keep in mind that when an article title can be singular or plural that the title of the article is singular per WP:SINGULAR. if the carpenters of the article is the singular carpenters we're talking about the band not the members of the band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- This says it all about your erroneous arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoKWf6pLs8 Afterwriting (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- So the argument that titles are singular is erroneous? Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The real issue, the one you keep missing the point of, is not about "singular" or "plural" nouns but about "collective nouns". Afterwriting (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The title of the article is not a collective noun, it's the title of a singular entity. per WP:Title titles should be singular, so where we have the choice we chose the singular title over the collective noun. the article "The Cranberries" is a singular title for the band... you guessed it... the Cranberries. if you want to make an exception for bands to be plural titles you can argue it in the WP page but I don't think consensus will follow that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to add mny voice to the requests for Bryce Carmony to stop changing "were" to "was" or "are" to "is" in band articles. As noted by Afterwriting, these group names are collective nouns and so the use of "was" or "is" in this case is grammatically incorrect. This is just basic English grammar for heaven's sake! In addition, I would ask that Bryce Carmony go back through the large number of articles that you've altered in this way over the past few days and revert your edits back to the grammatically correct form. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to my above response, band names like "The Byrds" are the name of a band - a singular entity - but still a collective noun for that particular group of musicians. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Byrds are..." or "The Byrds were" is correct, in both American English and British English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun and a collective noun, which "Byrds" is, then "are" or "were" is grammatically correct. Really though, this is just common sense and it's also supported by the style guides of countless other print or online music publications. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're confused. just because something can be a collective noun doesn't mean that it always is. Pop-tarts is a brand of food = Title of Singular Entity. Pop tarts are delicious! = Collective noun of al the worlds pop-tarts. So the question is what is the title of the article? is the title of the article the singular title of the entity or is it the collective noun? and WP:Titles informs us that it is preferable that it be the singular entity. so when we refer to the band we are referring to the title of the singular entity not the collective noun. Which is why we don't say "Pop-tarts are a brand" or "The cranberries are a band"Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- WP:Titles says we shouldn't use the collective noun as the title and use the singular entity. if you have a problem with that policy you can propose a change to that policy, you can't cherry pick what policies you will and will not follow. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You're confused. just because something can be a collective noun doesn't mean that it always is. Pop-tarts is a brand of food = Title of Singular Entity. Pop tarts are delicious! = Collective noun of al the worlds pop-tarts. So the question is what is the title of the article? is the title of the article the singular title of the entity or is it the collective noun? and WP:Titles informs us that it is preferable that it be the singular entity. so when we refer to the band we are referring to the title of the singular entity not the collective noun. Which is why we don't say "Pop-tarts are a brand" or "The cranberries are a band"Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- In addition to my above response, band names like "The Byrds" are the name of a band - a singular entity - but still a collective noun for that particular group of musicians. If you take a look at American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement, you'll see that "The Byrds are..." or "The Byrds were" is correct, in both American English and British English. If the band's name is a plural proper noun and a collective noun, which "Byrds" is, then "are" or "were" is grammatically correct. Really though, this is just common sense and it's also supported by the style guides of countless other print or online music publications. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- I would like to add mny voice to the requests for Bryce Carmony to stop changing "were" to "was" or "are" to "is" in band articles. As noted by Afterwriting, these group names are collective nouns and so the use of "was" or "is" in this case is grammatically incorrect. This is just basic English grammar for heaven's sake! In addition, I would ask that Bryce Carmony go back through the large number of articles that you've altered in this way over the past few days and revert your edits back to the grammatically correct form. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The title of the article is not a collective noun, it's the title of a singular entity. per WP:Title titles should be singular, so where we have the choice we chose the singular title over the collective noun. the article "The Cranberries" is a singular title for the band... you guessed it... the Cranberries. if you want to make an exception for bands to be plural titles you can argue it in the WP page but I don't think consensus will follow that. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- The real issue, the one you keep missing the point of, is not about "singular" or "plural" nouns but about "collective nouns". Afterwriting (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- So the argument that titles are singular is erroneous? Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- This says it all about your erroneous arguments : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KoKWf6pLs8 Afterwriting (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Oh so the aritcle "Bread (band)" is about the band bread but the article "the Carpenters" is about the members of the band the carpenters. That makes TOTAL sense. Keep in mind that when an article title can be singular or plural that the title of the article is singular per WP:SINGULAR. if the carpenters of the article is the singular carpenters we're talking about the band not the members of the band. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Irrelevant argument. In these examples you are referring to the words "The Seahawks" and "The Beatles" and not to the collective nouns. Different principle, different grammar. Should be obvious. Afterwriting (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- So you would say "The Seahawks are a trademark" you would truly in your heart of hearts write that. "The Beatles are a trademark". You are incapable of understanding that the singular entity of the band =/= the individual members of the band at all times. Bryce Carmony (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are mistaken and are indulging in "invincible ignorance" in your inability to understand why you are mistaken. Afterwriting (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- The example is reffering to individual members, which is why they said champions. The individual seahawk players are the individual champions. The example does not , and would not say that the Seahawks are a Franchise owned by Paul Allen. Since Paul Allen does not own the individual players, he owns the entity as a whole. If we are referring to the beach boys as individuals we say are. But if we are referring to the title of their band like the first sentence of the article about that band is. We say is. Many bands do this (The Black Eyed Peas, the Wall Flowers, Guns and Roses, etc) It might confuse you but it's sound grammar.
- You are still missing the point. As the Manual of Style makes clear, when the name of a band or a sporting team includes a plural noun, such as "Eagles", then it is then not treated as a single entity (a band or team) but as a plural entity (a number of people). This principle is not difficult to understand. Afterwriting (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah...I'm not cherry picking and you're wrong about the correct use of "was" or "is" with regards to this. Whether the article title is a singular entity or the collective noun is irrelevant, it's the use of "was" or "is" in the context of the opening sentence of the article, in which the band is clearly a collective noun, that is in dispute. But regardless of that, I've just seen this: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bryce.C2.A0Carmony.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29. I don't think there's much more to say here. You're a disruptive editor who will not accept editor consensus or repeated warnings. Therefore, I don't have anything else to add to this discussion. I'll let the admins make a decision about this. --Kohoutek1138 (talk) 00:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't. In BrE all bands are always collective nounds. "Supertramp are a band" not "is a band" because in English we always use the collective noun for a band. in AmE we don't HAVE to use the collective noun for a band. we can treat it as a singular entity (which the title and subsequently introduction line do) Would you argue that a band like... "Bread" be "Bread are a band" since you insist on treating bands as collective nouns. or do you only sometimes insist on bands to be collective nouns? if so, why? Why should we sometimes treat a band as a collective noun and sometimes not treat it when both scenarios are being introduced as the topic of the article? so some topics are about the bands? and some are about the individual band members? makes zero sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your most recent comments only further demonstrate your invincible ignorance on this question. If a band's name is both a plural noun and a collective noun then it is grammatically correct to use "were" and "are" etc. Which part of this straightforward grammatical principle don't you understand? Your special pleading analogy with Pop Tarts is erroneous. On this issue you are not properly informed or competent. Afterwriting (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you write "AC/DC are a band" "Metalica are a band" "Styx are a band" "Journey are a band" etc? If you are arguing that all bands must all be treated as collective verbs always then let me know. or are you saying "I want to only treat bands as collective nouns sometimes depending on my arbitrary mood" let me know. WP:Titles promotes my posiion, where as you have no policy basis to argue for saying "are a band" when the name of the band is a title of a singular unit. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've just proven my point again about your invincible ignorance. These band names are not BOTH plural nouns and collective nouns. Therefore, in American English, the verb forms of "were" and "are" would not be correct (but can be in British English) unlike plural and collective names such as "Eagles" and "Carpenters". Your repeated inability to understand these obvious distinctions is disturbing. Afterwriting (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Let's simplify this. do you believe that a title for a singular entity should use the singular verb? yes or no. we'll take this one step at a time and find where the disconnect is.Bryce Carmony (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- You've just proven my point again about your invincible ignorance. These band names are not BOTH plural nouns and collective nouns. Therefore, in American English, the verb forms of "were" and "are" would not be correct (but can be in British English) unlike plural and collective names such as "Eagles" and "Carpenters". Your repeated inability to understand these obvious distinctions is disturbing. Afterwriting (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Would you write "AC/DC are a band" "Metalica are a band" "Styx are a band" "Journey are a band" etc? If you are arguing that all bands must all be treated as collective verbs always then let me know. or are you saying "I want to only treat bands as collective nouns sometimes depending on my arbitrary mood" let me know. WP:Titles promotes my posiion, where as you have no policy basis to argue for saying "are a band" when the name of the band is a title of a singular unit. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your most recent comments only further demonstrate your invincible ignorance on this question. If a band's name is both a plural noun and a collective noun then it is grammatically correct to use "were" and "are" etc. Which part of this straightforward grammatical principle don't you understand? Your special pleading analogy with Pop Tarts is erroneous. On this issue you are not properly informed or competent. Afterwriting (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
- It isn't. In BrE all bands are always collective nounds. "Supertramp are a band" not "is a band" because in English we always use the collective noun for a band. in AmE we don't HAVE to use the collective noun for a band. we can treat it as a singular entity (which the title and subsequently introduction line do) Would you argue that a band like... "Bread" be "Bread are a band" since you insist on treating bands as collective nouns. or do you only sometimes insist on bands to be collective nouns? if so, why? Why should we sometimes treat a band as a collective noun and sometimes not treat it when both scenarios are being introduced as the topic of the article? so some topics are about the bands? and some are about the individual band members? makes zero sense. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:04, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
.
October 2015: WP:CBAN Blocked
Per this discussion, you have been indefinitely banned blocked from editing. The consensus here is that your efforts constitute disruptive editing Indefinite does not mean infinitely, but I would suggest you wait at least a year before appealing this block and ban, and strongly suggest you not attempt a return in under 6 months. Hopefully the time away and some perspective will provide some insight on the collaborative nature of the project. You can read WP:UNBAN WP:GAB and UNBLOCK for details. — Ched : ? 05:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC) edited for accuracy — Ched : ? 10:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
New entry for your coffee table book category
Hi Bryce,
Representing several fan club members of West Coast Midnight Run™ we thought you may want to add the title of the publication to your Coffee Table Book page. The publication is along the lines of an art book/coffee table book with strong qualities influenced by lifestyle and entertainment magazines. We invite you to look them up and contact their editors for more information if they qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:A886:7500:9842:2D27:82F4:E21C (talk) 04:07, 15 June 2019 (UTC)