anything you need to talk about to me with can be done here, thanx. USEDfan ( talk) 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
WOW! Good idea sorting the singles by album. It works perfectly. I'm impressed. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 01:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
The vibe I was getting was that they are going in a much further direction from their original sound than Lies for the Liars, which makes me worried. However, I like that it isn't going to be over-produced, which is what contributed to their getting progressively divergent, and thus, worse. Don't get me wrong, they're still a great band. It's just that they haven't been able to top their first album yet, and they clearly have the talent to do so. In Love and Death wasn't bad, considering what Bert went through at the time, but it wasn't great either. Lies was really bad, though the b-sides were great. I think they tried too hard to be "different" from their sound. The band actually said that they weren't putting as much thought into that release as they did for their other ones. Now they want to be more "different", so it's possible that this album will be their worst. But maybe the different approach will produce something unexpectedly good. Not trying to dampen your spirits, I'm excited too. But they've disappointed before. One of these days, I'll start the article on their 4th album. Just have to get everything in order so that it won't get deleted again :| -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 07:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I hate to beat a dead horse here, but I can't let this go about Branden being kicked out of the band. I don't doubt your good intentions, but here are the facts I've seen: The Used said in their statement regarding Branden (available here), "We felt that we needed to move forward without Branden as our drummer." That's indisputably a polite way of saying they kicked him out. Nowhere did they say it was a mutual departure. If a girl tells her boyfriend that she needs to "move on" in her life, that doesn't mean it's a "mutual departure." The statement referenced in the article, and available here, says nothing of "parting ways."
If you have a link or other source that says, "This is a mutual departure," by all means, I'd love to see it. Until then, editing The Used's article to say they lied about kicking out Branden is inaccurate and maybe even defamatory. Please stop reverting it. Thanks. See Jay ( talk) 04:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
It's a good start. I like what you've done so far. The page really needed more content than just the bio. The section needs work though. I'll see what I can do...
Just wondering.. do you have any photos that can go in the article? It could use more pics. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it really has improved over the past 6 months or so. A way we can make it better is if we make a proper lead section for the article. I wrote one a couple months ago I think, and you and some other user deleted it because the information was "already in the bio". But we need a summary of the article, in order to entice the reader to continue reading the whole thing. We should also try to get it to the level of good article, and eventually featured status. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 22:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for creating the genre section. It has definitely helped with organization and the edit wars going on. I edited it a bit to make it sound a little better, and I removed the reference to Last.fm (Wikipedia does not allow references to open wikis), but other than that, good move. Also, if you could find another source instead of the Last.fm one, that would be great. (I don't know if you added it, but either way...) Thanks again! -- FatalError ( t| c) 01:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello again USEDfan. Remember me? Your edits over the last month or two have yet again been brought to my attention, and that is usually not a good thing. I'd like to sincerely congratulate you on the efforts you have put into working with others and collaborating on producing fine articles, but I also have a darker message that you need to hear. Your alternate accounts will never again make another edit. This is the only account you will ever use. Additionally, I never want to see another message on this talk page about edit warring. If you find yourself in a dispute you are not to make any reverts but must only work with others on the talk pages, always remembering to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, especially WP:V and WP:NPOV. If you do not follow this advice you are likely to be indefinitely blocked, and probably not by me either. Please don't bother to object to this message, you are aware of our policies on disruption and blocking, and you also know that I know what I'm talking about. Again I'd like to thank you for working with others. Please leave any reverting to them. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobody agrees with him, so I think we're good. If he starts changing it his way, we'll just report it. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 15:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I was wondering why you keep removing the external links. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 13:53, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, album articles usually do link to videos of songs from the album. So you're wrong about that. And I'm not suggesting in the slightest that every song from every album should be linked to, because that violates Wikipedia's external links policy. But this is a demo album, which means it was never meant to be sold. It even says in the article that they gave it away for free. Anyone who's looking for the tracks on this album is obviously a big fan and would have all their records, so the "giving away for free" argument is moot. Wikipedia is a place where people come to find things out, so they would be searching for it if they stumbled upon the page. It's encyclopedic to include the two links, because that version of "Box Full of Sharp Objects" is what got them signed, and "The Taste of Ink" is the one that was changed the most for their debut. They also happen to be the two singles from their first album that are on this one. You're just being elitist because you have a copy of the record. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 23:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I have posted a query regarding the video links on Demos from the Basement here. Can we agree not to add/remove until we get a response please? Nouse4aname ( talk) 09:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
That's great news! -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too disappointed, because they've been working a lot faster than usual, so a few months' delay is not a big deal. -- Pwnage8 ( talk) 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
My user page says no such thing... Now, if you don't have anything constructive to say, please do not bother me again. Nouse4aname ( talk) 17:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have started a thread here regarding your recent behavior. You are welcome to come and share your thoughts on the matter. Landon1980 ( talk) 05:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
USEDfan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
what? i barely edited anything in the past few days. i dont understand this at all, this ban truly is unjust and makes no sense at all. USEDfan ( talk) 06:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were actually pretty active in the last ten days since your previous block (I count somewhere around 150 edits). And all the same things happened again. — Daniel Case ( talk) 07:43, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
USEDfan ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
^^^Most of my edits were on talk pages, however my point is that i didnt violate any rules since my last block ended, and some user went and reported me for everything ive done since i been here, i already served a banned for everything i done on wiki. so pretty much i got a ban for everything that i already served a ban for, and thats not right, since my last ban edned i did a very good job avioding edit wars and all that, and just because some other wiki user takes everything i did wrong in my wiki career and puts it together i got banned, this ban now was uncalled for, if i was going to be banned i would of had to make an infragment, but i havent done anything wrong since my last ban ending, so pretty much since my last ban ending, i have not broke any rules so that means i got ban for things i already served a ban for and thats why i shud unblocked, to be banned again id have to break a rule, this ban should be removed completely, not just lessened in time, if the admin who reads this doesnt understand my point here, please send anohter admin over. cause it really makes no sense how an admin who never followed any of these things could just give me a indefinite ban for not doing any wrong. (remember the reason they ban me was for bans i already served and i havent crated any infagments since my last ban) USEDfan ( talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The evidence laid out at this thread shows significant disruption on your part. All of those edits presented as evidence have occurred since your previous block. Just because you didn't edit an article doesn't mean you weren't disruptive.— Metros ( talk) 17:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Thanks for uploading File:Used demo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 ( talk) 20:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)