User talk:Popcornfud

I started a fresh RfC about the issue of alt and bonus tracks. Hopefully this one won't fizzle out like the other. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#RfC_on_bonus_and_alternate_track_listings.--3family6 (Talk to me|See what I have done) 17:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Popcornfud, hope you're doing well. I drafted up a new "Music and lyrics" section for Tall Tales in my sandbox. I thought I'd run it by you first since we've both put a good chunk of time into this article. Please feel free to correct anything you think could be better or send me any feedback. Cheers! Rambley (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rambley You're doing good work on the article. I wouldn't be afraid to move that content straight from your sandbox into the main page. Once it's in there I'll copyedit it. No rush. Popcornfud (talk) 03:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you thanked me for removing an unsourced content in synthesizer. However, it got reverted. Should it stay as it is now? Or the removal of it is better? What do you think? Nyam Nyam Tiger (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Just going to say the issue is one of conduct rather than content, which might be important context to have. I personally have no opinion on the content.) Remsense ‥ 论 16:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, per WP:BURDEN. We shouldn't have uncited material sitting around in articles for years. Popcornfud (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, we also shouldn't have users treating "citation needed" as meaning "dubious" or unilaterally deciding Wikipedia does not allow uncited material. When this user's contributions are analyzed holistically, it's clear they are being purely disruptive and their reasoning is not sufficient for any edits. If you agree the material can't be cited, then fine. Remsense ‥ 论 22:17, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked much into this editor's posting history, but as a general rule I agree with the removal of uncited material and think was a good change to the synthesizer page. Popcornfud (talk) 08:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, regarding WP:EASTEREGG -- fwiw, I think your change is definitely better at conveying the specific information without creating problems. JeffSpaceman (talk) 14:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The worry I have is that the Gaza genocide isn't necessarily accepted by everyone to be a "real thing", and dropping it into the prose like it's uncontested fact might create a POV problem. I note, for example, that the Gaza genocide article has the short description "Characterisation of Israeli mass killings in Gaza" (framing it as an opinion) rather than "Israeli mass killings in Gaza".

However, on reflection, I don't really give a crap. Popcornfud (talk) 14:59, 1 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your removal of this content. In addition to not being related to improving the article, it also invites potential outing, which is prohibited with regards to both editors and non-editors. Once again, thank you for removing that. JeffSpaceman (talk) 17:56, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the reference to Hyde's synthesizer. The linked Wikipedia article has an explanation of what it is, and a citation with a link to the issue of Modern Electrics that has the article describing the synthesizer. You can scroll down to the page in the citation to see it. Just click the link that you deleted, and look at the citation. Augur (talk) 00:44, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to ensure no confusion: the PDF page of the article is 22-23, but the publication is volume numbered, and so the numbers printed on the page itself are 580-581. You can see that here: https://www.worldradiohistory.com/Archive-Modern-Electrics/Modern-Electrics-1912-09.pdf#page=22. I will edit the citation to link directly to these pages to avoid future confusion. Augur (talk) 00:57, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear to me that you have been stalking my Wikipedia edits for some time now, possibly even multiple years. I've dealt with you reverting or otherwise finding issue with my edits on countless pages across all different topics for years at this point with the suspicion you may have been edit-stalking me but your action of reverting my edits on The End of Evangelion all but proves it. I've checked your edit history and see that you haven't edited a single article related to Neon Genesis Evangelion since July 29th of last year, and haven't edited The End of Evangelion specifically since June 3rd, 2023—over two years ago. I have a disagreement with an editor on that article today and suddenly there you are yet again? The likelihood of that being a coincidence is infeasible to me. No other editors have repeatedly had these kinds of issues with my contributions; the notion that you're simply trying to uphold Wikipedia's guidelines doesn't hold water. I am collecting the necessary information to make a formal report so I can finally put an end to your harassment. This will not go on any longer. Hostagecat (talk) 10:23, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my 10+ years of Wikipedia editing, this one takes the cake. No. The End of Evangelion page has been on my watchlist for years and I've edited its plot summary on many occasions. I saw there was a dispute over the summary and got involved. Popcornfud (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your edit history for examples of my "finding issue with my edits on countless pages across all different topics for years" (because believe me, you seem to remember this better than I do), it looks like you've edited a ton of Radiohead-related articles. I probably do more work on Radiohead than any other editor, so if you're going to work on that subject, we're absolutely going to run into one another.

Other than that, the only articles in your contribution history I recall ever working on are MF Doom and Akai MPC. Might I suggest the intersection of interests between Radiohead, hip hop and anime is less unusual than you might imagine...? Popcornfud (talk) 10:57, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I also noted in another reply, that IP editor that restored my old edits is not related to me. As i noted in that reply, I understood the points you were making and I've long dropped out of the edit war by this point, but thanks for restoring my last edits. I even tagged the second cover as Orphaned from what you requested me to do. Again, the current form was fine, I didn't do that, i had taken a two day vacation from editing by that point as a matter of fact. Thanks for Understanding. Justdoowit665 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also forgot to add that I only edit from my account. Justdoowit665 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Popcornfud, Can I ask you a question about the Bill Dworin statement from the *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations* page? If you don't care to be involved, I understand. I should say too that the Bill Dworin statement is being debated at the DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Michael Jackson 2). Thanks. Hammelsmith (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The MJ pages are controlled by an organized pack of single-purpose editors, resulting in some truly perverse outcomes you wouldn't find anywhere else on Wikipedia. I don't have the energy for more Michael Jackson debates right now, but I may return if circumstances change. Popcornfud (talk) 09:44, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I still have faith in Wiki diplomacy. Hammelsmith (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to really like Radiohead, which Radiohead article currently seems to be the most likely GA-class article in the future to you? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In my opinion, all of the following pages are probably around GA-quality already, or not far off it: Everything in Its Right Place, Man of War (song), I Promise (Radiohead song), Lift (Radiohead song), Pyramid Song, Knives Out (song), My Iron Lung, I Might Be Wrong: Live Recordings, MiniDiscs_(Hacked), OK Computer OKNOTOK 1997 2017, Kid A Mnesia, Kid A Mnesia Exhibition, Radiohead stage collapse, or any of the band members' pages. Most of the Smile pages are also in generally good shape.

Additionally, any of the existing GA for the main albums (eg A Moon Shaped Pool) could probably be promoted to FA without a lot of effort.

I used to write and review GA/FA but I'm not into that any more. If you want to try to get any of these promoted, go for it. Since all the main albums are already GA or FA it might make sense to focus on the compilation albums, live album and EPs. Popcornfud (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of related follow up question: How does Draft:Anyone Can Play Guitar look? Newtatoryd222 (talk) 12:34, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another question: what Radiohead song looks most promising to have an article in the future besides "Weird Fishes/Arpeggi", since I know you're probably gonna say that song? (sorry for all of the questions.) Newtatoryd222 (talk) 12:40, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably no further Radiohead songs meet the notability criteria for articles, per WP:NSONG. I know articles for Ill Wind and Exit Music were created recently and I suspect they probably don't deserve articles either, especially Ill Wind, but I haven't generated the time or energy to really think about those yet. Popcornfud (talk) 15:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]