HCStymie

April 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Taurine are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Zefr (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I click on the link to it and it appears whatever I said was removed. Not helpful if I don't even know what I said. No way to know if I just needed to phrase something different or find a link to support what was said, etc. Or if I was pointing out something about the article, etc. HCStymie (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

May 2026

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:List of beatdown hardcore bands, you may be blocked from editing. Beta Beta Beta - talk 05:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

This is stupid. I click the link and it shows me someone else's message.

It is useless to say I had an inappropriate discussion. Not indicate what and why something was flagged as inappropriate. And then link to someone else's comment.

How can I take this seriously if I don't even know if this is just some automated thing or some random person's opinion. Wikipedia is all about having resources and citing where information comes from. Yet totally disregards that for these kinds of notifications. Rediculous. HCStymie (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that I was talking about what you said on the talk page that I had reverted because of your usage of what the vast majority of people nowadays consider a slur. There is a built in feature where you can see the history of the page and it shows as clear as day your disruptive edit to the talk page. You have no reason to shift the blame on me and assume I'm a bot (or operated by one under the guise that I am human). Despite this, you are welcome to contribute constructively, and not write profane content on talk pages of articles. Thanks for your time. Beta Beta Beta - talk 23:18, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm a software engineer. Your name is Beta Beta Beta. Beta is a term used for something still being implemented. Your name looks exactly like a new feature that is in "Beta". Have you seen websites that mention a feature that is in Beta before?

" to shift the blame on me". Wasn't "shifting" blame on you. I was expressing blame for bad featurism, that the functionality is terrible. Different "blame". Standard practice, when there is an error and you have a link, it goes to the error or thing being notified. I click the link expecting to see the issue. My comment is not there. Assuming I am familiar with the history of the talk page is an error on your part. Wikipedia is not something I have gone in depth on learning.

Are you an admin for wikipedia or just choosing to police it on your own? Other websites admins or mods identify themselves when interacting with patrons of the site.

Did some digging found out you are an "Extended confirmed account". Ok, now it is making sense. Ok, can't fault you for having a passion for something and wanting to keep up its standards. And figured out the history feature. Technically I was referring to these extremely horribly wrong no clue in the slightest ruining history articles as "retarded". Not the authors. Which the wikipage mentioned not attacking the person, which I wasn't. But, I can see how that technical difference may not be enough. I'll try to do a better job of restraining myself. I also have a passion for something and it is the thing these articles are, [not finding an appropriate alternative to what I really want to say so lets just assume I think the articles are really bad]. I don't have the energy to deal with this. Put an entire night into it which is far more than I should.

If people over and over again keep saying how bad and misinformed an article is. And the composer of it clearly does not understand and lacks the ability to understand the topic. It should be removed. such as on the "beatdown hardcore" wiki talk page.

The author writes.

"I created this page didn't I? I created it because bands like Hatebreed, Terror, Madball, Strife, etc. keep getting called hardcore bands yet they sound NOTHING like Black Flag, Minor Threat, the Circle Jerks, etc. These bands instead are just metal-oriented bands and they sound way more metal than punk. But while hardcore is short for hardcore punk, bands like madball and terror are labeled often as simply hardcore and are never labeled hardcore punk. That's why I thought a more mainstream word for their style is simply hardcore. I guess we could change this page name to "Hardcore (heavy metal subgenre)""

It is evident to me that they do not understand the thing they are making a page about. Because they are upset that some bands don't sound like other bands from the scene. They have an opinion about them that they express. But that is not an appropriate basis to make a page about. They express how they are totally confused by the different terms of the genre. And their whole premise for the page is biased references. The page they wrote is better off being an example of a number of the entries on this page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias. HCStymie (talk) 10:33, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Alright, thank you for you response. For the article itself, if you believe that the article should be deleted (which I'll admit that I have no general opinion on), you can nominate it in articles for deletion. Beta Beta Beta - talk 19:15, 19 May 2026 (UTC)