User talk:UndergroundMan3000

Please stop making incorrect edits to the Private Music wiki. You have made multiple incorrect edits multiple times in the last two days, reinserting your errors after they were corrected.

First, you removed correct information, that Fred Sablan plays on the album, which has been made public in publicity materials distributed by the band on its own official channels and in news articles for weeks. In doing this, you falsely claimed there was "no evidence" for this information.

You have also twice inserted false information into the Wiki. Fred Sablan did not replace Sergio Vega. He is a touring bassist and not a formal member of the group. This has already been litigated, with citations, on the main Deftones wiki after multiple people tried adding similarly incorrect information wrongly claiming Sablan is a member of the group. Until and unless a member is added to replace Vega, he hasn't been replaced.

Furthermore, stating the contributors to the album is not "too much information." Every single wiki for an album where the information is available mentions the personnel at some point. Icanttalkaboutit (talk) 14:30, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda was "too much information". While I appreciate what you were trying to do, I thought that sentence should be more focused on who's playing bass on the album, not the other members of the band. That's why I reverted one of your last edits. Otherwise you should have cited sources instead of just telling me how reliable they are. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent use of code golfing by User:Retana1 seems to be that they are neither a sock, bot, nor using AI. Please revert. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:41, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To start with, the works field is for anything the artist has worked on, even if that only includes their discography. That’s why the discography is already noted. Otherwise both the field and example are both discography, which makes no sense. Second, no matter how many times you change the word “works” to say “discography” it doesn’t actually change on the page. By using that particular infobox template, that field is always going to say “works” no matter what you change it to. It’s locked in to say that. NJZombie (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Even if I still don't agree with at least half of your statement (example being the fact that "works" is more accurate when a "discography" when the link to a band's article listing all their recordings still shows up in its infobox after clicking the "publishing changes" button), I understand what you mean and I'll stop reverting what you did for now. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 18:09, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the discography link remains whatever word is in the template because the discography is what has been linked. What I don’t get is the need to change the word “works” to “discography” when the change doesn’t reflect after hitting the publish button. Whether I agree or disagree with what word should be there, it can’t be changed. Wikipedia ignores the edit. That’s the part that baffles me. NJZombie (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I just clarified at Talk:Dream Theater, the phrase "works" to me sounds like more than just music recordings, like books or films/movies for example, while "discography" is only a list of recordings. UndergroundMan3000 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like that because that’s exactly what the field is. The point I’m making though is even if we agreed that it should only be for discographies, editing the word to say that doesn’t actually change it. Either way, the discography link still remains where it belongs. NJZombie (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]