" 
 ::Among other purposes, talk pages are for editors to communicate potential issues in editing behavior. I noticed a potential issue, thus I came to your talk page to discuss it with you. This is distinctly different from bitching and there is no reason to get defensive. Your contribution to Axe to Fall was neither a restore nor a sourced genre as you claim it to becrossover trash was never previously listed in the genre box, nor was is it listed in any of the sources in the article. At Put On Your Rosy Red Glasses you changed avant-garde to progressive, but progressive isn't listed in any of the sources provided nor was this a restore move. In fact, one of the reviews actually describes the album as avant-garde. None of the sources at ""The Hounds of Anubis"" list thrash metal. An editor on the talk page even requested a source be provided, but you told him he was wrong because because he was advancing his opinion. But by not providing a source yourself, it sure seems like you're trying to advance your own opinion as well. These examples are only from the last few weeks and this is an issue I've noticed for a long time as you edit a lot of articles on my watchlist. In the future, could you simply provide an edit summary that states you're changing a genre and why you're changing it? Something as simple as ""adding this genre because it's mentioned in three of the professional reviews in the reception section"" or ""replacing an unsourced genre with one that was previously sourced"" would go a long way. Thanks.   "