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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hello. I'm Serge, an Admin here on Wikipedia. Welcome back to editing. However, I've got some concerns about some of your talk page comments you're leaving. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, where we're all supposed to be working together to improve things. You're not exactly starting things off on a positive note when you announce your presence to any of the article's past contributors with comments like

1. ""Yeah this article is laughably bad" or
2. "This is probably the worst music page on Wikipedia Incredibly horrible page" or
3. "terrible article".

Approaching everyone with a "well you've all done terrible work but don't worry I'm here" isn't going to work. Please stop that immediately. Even if Wikipedia didn't have guidance against that, you should want to stop of your own accord - you're not doing yourself any favors talking to others like that. Sergecross73 msg me 15:18, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody even replies though? It's not even really to even attack others, most of those articles were made years ago. Like the experimental rock one. It seemed someone complained about it in 2019. And it was still showing the same issues. It's kind of just a thing for me to mark what to add next but yeah I can change it doesn't matter really, but as you've said it's not really breaking a rule at all. It feels you've misconstrued what I was going for there. But I'll take your advice in good faithAradicus77 (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason I even made those claims is due to being shocked for example that a page like the industrial music page was voted GOOD ARTICLE. With a bunch of unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. Although it could be said that at the time it was a good article and as time went by people ruined it. But man I've contributed quite A LOT to these pages. This isn't to say I'll keep making those statements, but I'm quite literally the only person bothering to take the time to fix these articles. Many of them have gone 10-20 years without any big revamp edits to the whole body. And I've been surprised to see numerous editors come forward to thank me for these edits. I'm trying to "modernize" these pages, it seems music is one of the most unactive areas on Wikipedia. A page like indie rock doesn't even have 1k recent editors which is surprising to me for such a massive genre, and then you have punk rock that also had a lot of issues with it such as lack of information in more important areas and unsourced claims, misinformation... etc. I've taken hours out of my time to contribute.

I'll say sorry because I do want Wikipedia to encourage new young editors to join, that's kind of what I want to encourage here. I want to see a Gen Z music editing community on here, editors making good-faith edits and more experienced editors incorporating them into the articles, it would be great to find likeminded individuals on topics and music. I've known people IRL at school who said they contributed to Wikipedia at one point but it was removed instantly and thats why they've never bothered with the site again, this is the narrative I want to delete. So thank you for bringing this to my attention. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please just talk about actual things you wish to fix, there's no need for the idle complaining. I'm not saying they don't need clean up - the whole reason I came across your edits is because I keep an eye on the new wave article because there's been a recurring disruptive editor who keeps making bad edits over the years. It likely needs improvement due to their efforts. I'm just saying that comments like the above serve no purpose other than potentially rile up or offend anyone related to the article. And I'm saying there are guidelines against that, but even if there weren't, it's still a bad idea. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing to stop. I'm not sure you had written that part yet at the time of me writing my response, as you've added to it a couple times now. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that editor. Wasn't there an editor who kept reverting it being from the United States? Something like that I'm not sure. I think that was the reason the article was originally locked. In general if you want me to not edit an article like New wave I don't mind that's not really my forte anyway. I just focus on copyediting or organizing information to read better. Aradicus77 (talk) 15:28, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That other editor had a hard time separating their personal stances (WP:OR and WP:SYNTH) from what reliable sources reported. We've got to follow WP:V and WP:RS and they, like many beginners, struggled with that. But they never stopped making those mistakes, and resorted to abusing multiple accounts. And got blocked. They've been gone for a bit though. Either they've left, or they've minimized disruption to that article to the point of it not being noticeable at least.

You're free to edit the article if you like, its up to you. Just be careful. Editing related to music genre is a constant issue. I imagine there will be a lot of discussions with others, and that's why I wanted to say something. You'll probably encounter some weird opinions. There's always some person with a strange hot take that "The Foo Fighters are nu metal" or something or other. There's always people who want to go off of their own personal stances, but we've got to remember to stick to what sources say, even when it doesn't match our worldview. And that can be tricky too, as you may find a reliable source that makes an assertion you completely disagree with. I remember someone presenting a reliable source that one of Lizzo's album was a rock album. I didn't agree with that. And while nothing forces me to add that of my own accord if I find it, if others wish to add it in good faith, it can be difficult to contest unless you can demonstrate its a WP:FRINGE viewpoint. Sergecross73 msg me 16:13, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]