Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:19, 15 January 2009

Status: Online

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

List of Iron Maiden band members

Quick question. I put a section, name "other members". I'm trying to find info about those early members. I found a place at h2g2, published by the BBC. Could you take a look at the article and tell me if that's a reliable source. The thing is that, it's the only place with info about early members.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Those members had no contributino. I'll explain that at the top of the section. See "former members", they're the ones that contributed. That way it doesn't get so confusing. Also the "other memmbers" don't even have article, I'll see how I can fix all that. I just want your opinion about the last ref, the one from h2g2 (BBC). Tell me if it's reliable or no0t. It's just that I can't find that info in any other place.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Good job

- Great stuff! He'll be back again no doubt. I would appreciate any further help you can give if he does try to get back in. Thanks and well done :-) Scarian 22:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Back again Scarian 22:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Here is comes...

		The Featured List Medal
		Congratulations for making Trivium discography a well deserved Featured List! It's always a pleasure working with you, so keep up the good job! Also, you must one of the first people to be awarded with this medal, which ironically was designed by yourself! How many things can one user do? Do U(knome)? or no 20:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: DT discog

I can't remember any interviews off the top of my head. I can remember Petrucci mentioning it in some interview, but can't remember exactly where as they've been around for over 20 years. I will try to look for something tomorrow if I can, but I'll be surprised if I can find anything major. blackngold29 04:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year and Paulini Curuenavuli discography FLC

Hello. Happy New Year. Thanks for your comments on the featured list candidate Paulini Curuenavuli discography. I understand you may be aware of this, however I would like to tell you directly that I believe I have made the necessary changes and addressed your concerns. Anyways, please see my response, here. My only concern is with referencing the music video directors, I'd appreciate if you could reply to my response. Thanks alot mate Hpfan9374 (talk) 12:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Revision history of List of Megadeth band members

You reverted my "ignorance"? In terms of justifying an edit, that's more offensive than required, especially when it's not very explanatory. I put quite a bit of work into the original timeline, and was created following the pattern that many other band articles I have edited have used and thus I was mimicking. Examples below:

• Kiss band members
• List of AC/DC members
• List of Thin Lizzy band members
• Dio
• List of Van Halen band members
• List of Anthrax band members
• The Rolling Stones
• Motörhead discography
• The Beatles' line-ups
• The Who personnel
• Def Leppard band members
• List of Judas Priest band members
• List of Lynyrd Skynyrd band members

The approach you chose to change the page to is one that is often used for bands that have rotated a fairly small selection of musicians, or is used on band pages e.g. Motley Crue, Iron Maiden, Metallica. Generally if a band has had enough member changes to be deemed worthy of a page dedicated to it, a timeline approach is more logical because the chronology is much easier to determine. With regard to Megadeth it makes it more immediately obvious that Megadeth had a lot of initial instability, then gained some in the form of Dave Ellefson, they split up, reformed with a touring line-up then got a more permanant line-up back together. Currently the page is just a list of musicians....sure, it shows their role within the band and when, but it does not show the band's work as a collective as clearly. For instance it takes a little analysis to see that the band had a stable line-up from 1989 to 1998 wheras in the old format it was viewable at a glance.

Some pages, like The Who personnel take BOTH approaches. That works when a band has had very small number of personnel involved, which is the only time your approach doesn't create a confusing mess. Or that's my personal opinion at any rate.

Sure, I see Iron Maiden, Metallica and Deep Purple's pages have been converted into the format you use. So maybe it's a new Misplaced Pages policy for us to have to change all the band pages into that format? OK, if that's true, I'm not so active as an editor lately and maybe I made a mistake. If I did, the way forward for me would be to debate that with Wiki editors in a discussion forum on the topic rather than with you. Maybe you can point me towards wherever that change was discussed? It'd be appreciated. If it's just a case of your personal preference over mine, I would appreciate more justification for such a radical change (effectively re-writing a page from scratch) just because I am "ignorant". I am ignorant of your intentions yes, but not of what makes a good encyclopaedic article. And if I'm ignorant of Misplaced Pages's policy on such pages, the solution is not to shrug me off and shove me to one side but to inform me of this to avoid me repeating the mistake, getting in an edit war with you, or starting a discussion like this one.

(The Elfoid (talk) 21:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

Any reason you're ignoring me?

Why do you think the edition that you did to this list is most correct that my? You simply destroyed all the work that I had, to improve the quality of this list. With this new format that includes text and a timeline, many users obtained the FL status in its works. I suggest that you ignore all dramas, and I'm not calling you "ignorant." Cannibaloki 00:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

"Why do you think the edition that you did to this list is most correct that my?"

I have explained why I think the way I had done it is the correct way to do it; I explained it above for you to read. I explained it QUITE clearly, and you ignored it. Response?

"You simply destroyed all the work that I had, to improve the quality of this list."

I did not "destroy" work you did, I edited it - it was still there in the history for you to revert. In any case, you "destroyed" mine first so if that argument carried any weight (which it does not, because of WP:OWN.

"With this new format that includes text and a timeline, many users obtained the FL status in its works."

You can still include a timeline in the article - one of the graphic ones like used for Iron Maiden can work great:

Since it's fairly compact, the risk of appearing to repeat information too often is minimal, and it presents the data in a different, useful way. Your methodology provides the same information but less clearly interpreted, more dispersed on a page, and without any kind of timescale. In short, this graphic method of doing it leaves yours fairly un-necessary. One of the main qualities it does lack is the list of releases by a band - dividers representing albums can fit nicely but live releases/remixes/DVDs etc. don't fit in so well - and the fact that you can't WikiLink to the band members' Misplaced Pages pages, which are two things my "band timeline" sort out which your pointless "instrument timeline" does not.

Sure, an article might get to FA with your method. It's possible. But does that make it the best way? Does that make it perfect? Just because it's A way that's Good Enough doesn't mean it's the Best Way.

"I suggest that you ignore all dramas, and I'm not calling you "ignorant."

I direct you to the following revert: "20:34, 1 January 2009 Cannibaloki (Talk | contribs) (6,078 bytes) (Reverted to revision 261201815 by Wether B; Reverting ignorance. (TW))"

And the drama's not a big deal. It'd be nice if you were polite and friendly but at the end of the way we're both here to edit an Encyclopaedia. If you wanna be rude, we can still achieve that aim and I will still argue my points based on principles, which I am, rather than for personal reasons as you appear to suspect.

(The Elfoid (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

Cannibaloki 03:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Are you not taking me seriously? I mean to see my points through. (The Elfoid (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC))

OK, I meant to say, I've gone to request a third opinion since I have no idea what to do with you.(The Elfoid (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

RE: Meshuggah @ FAC

Greets! Well, I am already pretty fed up with the whole shit man, since I am doing like fourth nomination or something. I was hesitating whether I should go and do the nomination no.4 or wheter I should not give fuck about the article anymore, because I simply do not have any time to do anything on wikipedia (studies). But recently some guys just added some positive comments, so it starts to seem better :) But thanks for your engagement!--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 12:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for support man! This should go :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Greets! If you're interested, you could consider a FL for ObZen Tour. I did some fixes and you could finish it if you want. You're better than me at this :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

 +¶¶0

 ++¶¶

 ++¶¶

  +¶¶0                      +++

  +¶¶¶                      +¶¶

  ++¶¶0                    +¶¶¶

  ++¶¶¶     ++0¶¶         ++¶¶

  ++¶¶¶¶  ++0¶¶¶0+0¶¶    ++¶¶¶

  +++¶¶¶0++0¶¶¶0+0¶¶¶¶  ++¶¶¶

   ++¶¶¶+0¶¶¶¶++0¶¶¶¶¶++¶¶¶¶

   ++¶¶0¶¶¶¶000¶¶¶¶¶¶++¶¶¶¶¶

   +++¶0¶¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶0+¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

    +++0¶¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶00¶¶¶¶¶¶

   0¶+++0¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

  ++0¶++0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

  +++0¶++0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

   +++0¶++00¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

    +++0++00¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

      +++++0¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

       ++++00000+¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

        ++++0+00¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

        +++++000¶¶¶¶¶¶¶

        +++++++¶¶¶¶¶¶¶¶--  LYKANTROP  ✉  16:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Regarding The Dykeenies' Good article review

Hi Cannibal (can i call you cannibal? :P) I've been over all the points you've raised in the above review and i think i've covered everything. If you could tell me now if its a pass then that would be great! -- ReplyOnMine! 21:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the most recent stuff sorted as well. -- ReplyOnMine! 21:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncivil behaviour report

After you reverted my edits to Trivium discography I made most of those edits again, this time explaining my actions each step at a time. Some of them included simple spelling and grammar corrections. Some were tightening up of the English used - sentences were poorly structured - and English is something your user page implies you may have some difficulty with. I was shrugged off as "nonsense". Not a huge crime in itself, but considering your childish behaviour regarding the Megadeth Band Members page - and looking at some of your other edits in the past showing this is a frequent problem that I probably can't change by myself - I have sought help at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts. (The Elfoid (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

Cannibaloki 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you a few minutes to rethink you commentary on WP:WQA ... you have directly attacked another editor, and have focused on CONTENT as opposed to civility behaviour. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your response is not civil and does not indicate good faith. While vigorous content debate is good, it needs to conform to the standards of the community. Continued incivility could lead to sanctions such as blocking. Gerardw (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

SOiL

i DONT KNOW WHERE YOU HAVE UR INFO FROM BUT SHAUN GLASS IS A FOUNDING MEMBER OF SOIL, AND IS NO LONGER IN THE BAND..FOCUSING ON DIRGE-HIS NEW BAND,....... GOOGLE IT IF UD LIKE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.128.97.2 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You send message to wrong user, I don't removed info from this article. These are my edits Regards, Cannibaloki 19:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)