| Revision as of 17:37, 12 November 2005 editIdont Havaname (talk | contribs)8,502 edits Personal attacks from Metal Mayhem Rulz at Talk:Gothic metal← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:02, 20 November 2005 edit undoLeyasu (talk | contribs)2,797 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == Re: ] Revision == | |||
| I have already "constructively critiqued" your rendition on the discussion page, and while it may not have been the "constructive critiques" you liked, I feel the positions were made pretty clear. Doing so again would be repeating myself, just as I have asked you a number of times to provide published documentation that backs up your claims and refutes material in the original edit. At this point, I suggest you ask ] and/or ] for feedback - they both reverted your edits back to the original more than once, and chances are, there were reasons behind it - perhaps some that were different than mine. Thank you. ] 18:08 08 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] piracy == | |||
| I've asked about this at ]. You should probably keep that page on your watchlist in case they have anything to say about it (I'm sure somebody there will say something within the next several days). --] 15:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| : Regarding compiling a list of who they stole songs from: That's really throwing mud at them, and it isn't worth the trouble. If you can't find the court case records, then don't mention it in the article (and the list of songs is more detail than we need; ] or ] would be the place to include information about this, if any). If it can't actually be confirmed with the court case, then it is not ]. If the internet doesn't say anything about it and you still think it's true, then remember that it's not our job to break a news story; that goes against verifiability. See the statement from ]: "For an encyclopedia, '''sources should be unimpeachable'''. An encyclopedia is ''not primary source material''. Its authors do not conduct interviews or perform original research. Therefore, ''anything we include should have been published in the records, reportage, research, or studies of other reputable sources''. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: ''outlandish claims beg strong sources''." A site ] cannot afford to make claims that are not backed up, especially claims of such a controversial nature. (Say that it hits MTV and they report, "Misplaced Pages is now saying that Evanescence stole all their songs"; that could lead to the band and WP getting in trouble. We are not here to discredit bands.) Also, phrases in your rewrite such as "Many bands" ], as it brings up ] concerns. (I think that might have been one of the reasons why ] didn't like your revision.) --] 04:02, 11 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==Personal attacks from Metal Mayhem Rulz at ]== | |||
| I've removed his comments as ]. Thanks for telling me about them. ] says that personal attacks are generally not vandalism, but ] says that removing personal attacks is "an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse". You might want to read over those two pages, and get quite familiar with them before you remove anything from a talk page (if you're not sure about something, just ask); some people might think that removing discussion from a talk page is too ]. --] 17:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||