Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
'''Please do not erase warnings on this page'''. <!-- ] --></div>''']]''' <sup>(<em>]</em>)</sup> 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
'''Please do not erase warnings on this page'''. <!-- ] --></div>''']]''' <sup>(<em>]</em>)</sup> 23:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
== Request for Arbitration: Unblocked ==
I am going to file a request for arbitration against Deathrocker. I am going to unblock you six hours early, but this is '''not''' an invitation to edit-war. I shall block you if you edit any article pertaining to any style of Metal. ''']]''' <sup>(<em>]</em>)</sup> 18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 18:12, 20 March 2006
RE: Alternative Metal
I think you got the wrong person. If you look at the edit history of Alternative Metal, you will see that I do not appear in it. I think the user you want is AJ Ramirez (talk·contribs). The only association I have with that user is that I weclomed him back in September. Please make sure you get the right person next time, you got me worried! All the best, FireFox09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I appreciate your thoughts, and I do want to approach this subject with the most civility. Curiously, I really don't have a vested interest in the subject; it's more that so many people were debating the topic and not doing anything about it I've had to force myself into the position of implementing change (plus the grammar was generally atrocious and some sections were just pasted word for word from websites or other articles). I've had to do similar edits for Noise pop and College rock. I'm going to move to editing Nu metal in a day or two in order to clarify the difference between the two (although there is a case for a huge overlap between the two terms, since stores and music sites (including mp3.com, among others) where I've found "Alternative metal" in usage list a number (but not all) of nu-metal bands; "nu-metal" is genetrally used in the press and genre discussion for post Korn/Limp Bizkit alternative metal bands that are thoroughly mainstream, soemtimes as dinstinction and other times derisively). The thing is if anyone else has thoughts on the subject besides the two of us, they haven't really been sharing them recently (especially on the topic of a merge). I'd really like them to contribute to the discussion. Right now all I'm seeing is us going back and forth, and that certainly is not helping. WesleyDodds15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
More a request for greater discussion, but that involves other people getting involved, which we can't necessarily force others to do. I know what you think, and you know what I think, but for the past week or so there has been no discussion from anyone else.
Something else that should be considered is that Alternative metalsurvived the vote for deletion; twice, I might add. A merger would be akin to deleting it, since the page would no longer exist and any searches would under a merger redirect to Nu metal. You did propose the idea of a merge during the vote, but no one else did, and no one else concurred. Right now we need to have greater discussion on the topic of a merge before anything so drastic is undertaken. WesleyDodds16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually I've found sources that distinguish between nu metal and alternative metal, specifically that nu metal is the direct descendant of Korn and the Deftones rather than all so-called alternative metal bands. The important point is that both terms are used quite often; however, as our discussion have established, neither of them are used with exact accuracy and consistency as, say, something like Shoegazing or grindcore is to describe a particular distinct style. I have a couple of things to incorporate from my searches here and there, but due to personal obligations I've only slept like five hours today, so after a loooong rest I'll work on incorporating more links and sources in the articles. My first priority will be writing a proper history of nu-metal because, really, right now there's 3 sections or so detailing the trends that led up to nu-metal (alt metal, grunge, and post-grunge) without actually dealing with the subject at hand. Those will be merged together and followed up in detail. Once that's done, I'll work on the grammar, espeically rewriting sentences in both articles in order to make them both internally consistent (obviously a problem when working on something like Misplaced Pages where people add bits piecemeal). Hopefully by the time I'm done with that (or in the best scenario, before I'm done) there will be more contributions from others on both pages. That's my main concern right now, that no matter how this entire discussion turns out, once all is said and done someone chimes in to say "Wait a minute!" when it would have been more productive for everyone if voices had been raised and work done by others at this moment. WesleyDodds02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Gothic / Doom metal band list thingy
Hi, fella. It might be worth dropping a comment onto the Talk page of the guy who separated that list off into a separate article. Chances are he won't spot the comments you made on his edit and you could end up reverting each other's changes ad-infinitum :) IainP(talk)12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Why did you remove the references? They may make the article look a little out of order, but they're a necessary evil. I'm trying to get this article through FA in a few days, and as you can read here, if there aren't any inline citations there is a big chance that Nightwish will not make it to featured article-status. -- SoothingR09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood the point of WP:V and WP:CITE. Yes, people have said it and yes, it's therefore a fact. However, Misplaced Pages policy tells us that information in articles have to be sourced. There inline references just make it clearer to see what comes from where. It's just so the provided info is easier to verify for others. Please stop removing them. SoothingR12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I do use the Notes-section, but I use those inline refs to point to that note section. So it is clear what note belongs to what part of the article. It's not all that strange. Many featured articles do that. SoothingR14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
That's just a matter of taste. Personally, I don't mind them. I wouldn't be able to think of a better way to implement the policy on verifiability. This is WP:CITE in optima forma. SoothingR14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello, Leyasu. I have been watching this discussion unfold, and since you are both so close to violating WP:3RR, I feel its time for me to interfere. SoothingR is fairly correct in this issue, despite the fact that you are too, to some degree. But the fact remains that inline citations have become somewhat of a standard when it comes to citing soruces for quotes or very specific facts, and those will certainly contribute for the article to reach Featured status. So if would please just let go and accept that they are needed, all would benefit. They break the flow of the sentence somewhat, true, but they should be there if the article is to pass the WP:FAC proccess. Regards, --Sn0wflake18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Gothic-doom
Gothic metal and gothic-doom are the very same thing. What you call "gothic-doom" is simply the evolution of the genre. It's the same thing as creating a new genre for more recent heavy metal bands simply because they don't play in the exact same way Sabbath did. A genre will always be a genre. What is your main claim for classifying bands as gothic-doom? Abscence of vocals on opposing ranges? --Sn0wflake00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not willing to push this issue forward, as the difference between the definitions seems to not be worth discussing over, but I will have to ask three things of you, however. First, make the inwikis correct in order not to confuse people, in this manner: gothic metal#Gothic doom, followed by "|gothic-doom metal", this will take the reades to that specific subsection of the gothic metal article. Second, if you are going to insist on changing categories also, you will have to create a category for Gothic-doom, that's non-negotiable. Don't forget that the second word on the genre is always in lower case. Also aknowledge that not all editors may agree with you, and the fact that I don't think the issue is worth discussing over does not by any means make this consensus. As such, my third request is that you provide sources for your claims on gothic metal. I hereby remove myself from this discussion unless my input is needed. What I am asking of you is merely from an admin standpoint. --Sn0wflake01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
What edit did I censor in Nightwish? If I did, it was certainly by mistake. I sincerely can't remember any instance of that. If you could please point out specific edits, and I mean specific edits, so that I can understand what you are talking about, I will be more than glad to review them. --Sn0wflake01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute with LGagnon
I have contacted the editor, and will keep an eye on the Talk page to mediate further discussions. However, I will have to ask of you to be more delicate in your words and assumptions. Often, when you speak, you seem to be making attacks, even if in truth you are not. Please, add reference on the article to back up your claims. Always. Opposing editors cannot argue against a reliable source. You may contact me in case the editor makes another threat, that behavior is not allowed according to the rules of the Misplaced Pages. Keep your cool, above all. --Sn0wflake01:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Seeing that is unlikely that any of you will voluntarily come to terms, I will do what I feel is fair for both parties. From now on, you both have a clean record. Please, please try to forget your old issues. However, from this point on, whenever one of you makes a personal attack, I will enforce a 6-hour block. If you can discuss amicably, best for everyone, but if you cannot, at least you will think twice before saying something offensive to one another.
I know it's hard to overcome this sort of dispute, but I have done so a couple of times in the past. My suggestion is that first you both stay away from the article for at least a day, then, when you return to discussion, try to not step on toes. Give suggestions instead of enforcing ideas, do not discuss much, instead, produce reliable sources. If you act in this manner, all will work out. --Sn0wflake04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
PS: The only way of restricting an user from a specific article (or your User page) is by means of WP:RfAr, which is a very serious proccess, and which I do not reccomend for such a small discussion.
Nightwish, again
Leyasu, first, if you have concerns over the complexity of the language on the article, you should understand that this is an attempt at an English encyclopedia, and as such does not need to have a simplistic and straightforward language, on the contrary, it is expected to have what we call brilliant prose. For simple language, we have the simple English Misplaced Pages at http://simple.wikipedia.org. Issue number two, I do not see as significant, you can surely live with that. As for three, it is our duty to show all significant POVs. I did understand that you work with music, but then again, so do I. That does not necessarily means your POV should prevail, even if you know you are right! The Misplaced Pages is a place for all POVs to be considered, and at times there are no clear answers to questions, even if you think you have them. I mantain that I do not consider your complaints relevant on the greater scheme of things, please try to see the bigger picture. The article still needs certain improvements, but you might be missing the point. --Sn0wflake04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I didn't say you made a personal attack. I said that if you make one, you will be temporarily blocked; the same is valid for Gagnon. Your comment about ignoring him was not very nice, and borders on that, but is by no means a blockable offence, it's just absolutely not helping. In case you are wondering, his POV is the one which will stand in case you do not provide any evidence to back that he is wrong, or at least that you are right. --Sn0wflake06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu, I have already asked it a couple thousand times, but again: please compile the sources which prove your point and post them on my new thread at the Talk page. --Sn0wflake07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR on Grunge music
You are invited to edit again once the block has expired. The evidence is here.
The 3 revert rule is extremely important and should not be violated under any circumstances. --Woohookitty08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Block
Leyasu, you did make a personal attack, by insulting LGagnon, so I have blocked you for 6 hours. Please do not repeat this, do not insult him, this does not help. --Sn0wflake05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Nu Metal
I noticed that you reverted the Nu metal article, removing what you claimed to be vandalism. I fail to see what exactly is "vandalism" in the orignal page. The entire entry that you deleted was truth. While I can see how you may have considered genre-bashing, I can assure you that it was all true. Instead of reverting the article, it would've likely been better to have re-worded what was said, as it did come off as slightly biased, regardless of how true it was. -D14BL017:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
On personal attacks
See Leyasu, around here we do not call people "meglomanical". We might think that, we might be sure of that, we might have enough expertise to be able to assert that by the way a person writes... but we don't call them meglomanical. Neither we give any other adjective with negative conotations to them. Just refer to him as "editor LGagon" or something like that and avoid commenting on his behavior, but rather focus on his contributions. --Sn0wflake19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I am getting tired of having my actions questioned by both of you. You don't get a body of admins to surpervise your minor conflict, rather, you get whoever volunteers, in that case, me. There are so many other ways you can say he is not acting reasonably without making it sound like an insult! In the first place, you shouldn't even be calling him anything, as I have already said, you should focus on his contributions, not on his person. --Sn0wflake01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I will kindly remind you that you were the one who invited me to mediate this dispute, not the other way around. If you think that I am victimizing you even after everything I have done to help the resolution of this dispute, then by all means, file a complaint against me in order to attempt removal of my sysop rights. The one at fault, in reality, is me, as no other admin would have gone to the lengths I have to solve this petty dispute. I have no obligation of doing this, so I would suggest that you stopped complaining and moved on with the dispute resolution. If you send another complaint with no basis, I'm out of this mediation proccess. I clearly stated that you both had a clear record from that point on and any personal attack any of you made, would result in a six hour block. You implied that he had behavioral issues. You got blocked. That's it. --Sn0wflake02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
It falls both under the bullet Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. and on the bullet Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." . As promised, this is the last complaint I'll answer. I await for your version of the article. --Sn0wflake03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Grunge
OK. I will wait for the other editor's view and negotiate the removal of the template with him, meanwhile, please avoid interaction with him. --Sn0wflake03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
The conclusion of the dispute resolution is as follows: the template will be removed, and the category stays. Assertions that grunge is similiar to hardcore punk may be made as long as it is made explicit that there is no consensus on that. Leyasu and LGagnon are encouraged to avoid interaction in the future, and in case that is made necessary, it is advised that unless it is a trivial matter, they ask for an admin to proxy the discussion. The article will be unprotected ASAP and admin Sn0wflake makes a request that both editors stay away from the article for at least a few days, only reverting the occasional vandalism if it is necessary. Regards, --Sn0wflake04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Ok, things seem to be stable now... drop by the Talk page in case you have anything to add to the new definition paragraph, but please do not talk directly to LGagnon OR edit the article just yet. Just add anything you might want in the paragraph in a follow-up post and I think we are done with this dispute. --Sn0wflake04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry
Sorry, but you're on your own this time. See my User page for more information. I'm sure somebody else will be able to help out. Best, --Sn0wflake04:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What Is Your Problem?
According to you, anything that isn't your edit is POV, Vandalism, or Harrassment - obviously not the case. And continuously no source/explanation to back up these claims, either way. Judging from the posts from others above, this matter between you and I (related to the Gothic Metal, Symphonic metal and Dark metal articles) is definitely not an isolated incident. --Danteferno02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Leyasu - anybody who doesn't agree with your edits you call "meglomaniacal". Anytime someone asks you for sources of your edits, you think of this as a personal attack. See the posts from others, above - this is not only between you and I. It seems even an admin
abandoned trying to work things out with you due to the fact you continuously attack people who don't agree with you. --Danteferno10:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Dear Leyasu: Hello there, I'm Nicholas, coordinator and mediator down at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal. A request has recently been made via e-mail for us to mediate a dispute relating to the Deathrock and Deathrock fashion articles, and the person who made the request named you as an involved party. The case is at:
If you would please be so kind as to read the request and comment as appropriate, stating whether or not you'd be willing to enter mediation, I would be most grateful. Remember, you can't be subject to any disciplinary action for what happens during mediation, or if you don't want to mediate - you can do exactly what you like, and this process is entirely voluntary and unofficial. Should you ever require any assistance or support relating to either this mediation request or the dispute, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk)12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
From Now On
If you cannot cite sources/examples of your claims, whether it is an allegation against anyone or a claim you're making in an article, please do not respond to any of my messages again. Thank you. --Danteferno15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Merging
In regards to the article Norsecore, just so you know, to comply with GFDL requirements for author attribution, the proper thing to do after a merge is to redirect where the content was merged to. Deleting it and replacing it with the redirect would eliminate the contribution history. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
in future, I suggest you learn what you're talking about before you label other editors' actions as "vandalism". Calling good-faith contributors vandals is a personal attack which, if you don't already know, is a definite no-no 'round here. I think you should also refrain from tagging articles for speedy deletion until you learn what is and is not a valid speedy reason. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
What I was doing was cleaning up the backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by deleting speedy-tagged articles that need deletion, and removing the tags from articles that don't (often there are two or three). Tagging an article for speedy deletion means "ask an admin if he's willing to delete it". I am one of the admins who check up on the tagged articles and delete them, if necessary. As such, I fail to see how either action — deleting, or removing the tag — could possibly be considered "vandalism" by anyone willing to engage their brain for a few moments.
User:Howcheng has explained to you above why the article couldn't have been deleted. Many admins will do the merge and redirect work themselves if that's the result of the AfD discussion, but some won't. If you want to merge an article, add the relevant stuff to the merge target (using an edit summary like "merge from Norsecore"), then replace the original article with a redirect. Neither article gets deleted. The speedy tag was inappropriate and, if you take a look at the wording of the tag, the proper action when dealing with an inappropriate speedy tag is to remove the tag. It could not have been vandalism. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Redirects are handled by having the only line of the article be #REDIRECT ], where "Target" is replaced by the name of the article you want to redirect to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the notify, looks like a standard section blanking to me, which I reverted. (Personally, I'm not really a fan of metalcore, too hard on my ears.) — TheKMan05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
At this point I think we have an idea of where Nu metal and Alternative metal are going. I think it's important to keep in mind that neither are absolute genres; alternative metal has a two-fold defintion based upon the common ground it has with metal and alternative, and nu metal more than anything refers to a movement than actual stylistic traits (although many bands do share them, as is prone to happen when trends become popular). However at this point, until we get more sources for either topic, there's little we can do. Personally, I want to focus on copyediting both articles (given I'm an English major and that's probably what I should be doing on Misplaced Pages above all else); that is, correcting grammar, rearranging sentences, rewriting parts, and resturcting the articles to make them more clear and concise. Basically, if you have any additional info to add to either of these articles, add it to them, contact me, and I'll try to integrate them as best as possible into the articles. Beyond that, I have no other ideas to suggest, but if you've got any, please share them with me.
Metal music is more problematic. I've already stated my views, so I'm not going to go too indepth into them. My concern is that a lot of the argument is possibly based on a misinterpretation of classification system like those used on Encyclopedia Metallum, as well as (as I see it) a misguied emphasis placed on the titles of the articles rather than their content. For example, those links provided recently in the talk page didn't actually help, because neither Encyclopedia Metallum or the FAQ provided make any sort of distinction beyond naming.
My approach is in maintaining the original article, heavy metal music, and the purpose it was created to fill. I don't think a metal music page is necessary (especially since to a great deal of people, the terms are interchangeable) but I have no objection to it existing if it fulfills a distinct purpose that does not detract from the original page.
Right now, aside from the genre list, both articles serve the same purpose; specifically, the history section. The material from the "the term heavy metal" and "Origins" (1960s and 1970s)" on the heavy metal music is summarized in a single paragraph in the "origins" section of metal music, although the summary proves ineffective as the more indepth description on the Heavy metal page is able to integrate sources and put them into context in order to effectively describe the origins of both the term and the genre. Also, the assertion that Black Sabbath is the first heavy metal band is rather tenious, and given that the term was applied to (and is still applied to) Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple since the early 70's (as evidenced by sources) it is factually incorrect. Additonally, both the sections "Undeground metal" and "Alternative metal" on the Heavy metal page attempt to cover the same ground the "Evolution" section on Metal music does, that topic being the emergence of a variety of subgenres. While the Heavy metal page section is much less detailed, keep in mind that metal subgenres did not really start to form until the early 80's, thus the heavy metal page has to cover more ground. Also, the intro paragraph to the History section on the Metal page is extremely POV ("like the term 'rock and roll' it is now gathering dust balls in the cupboard"). Without any sort of source, right now it seems like a personal declaration of the difference between the terms, and we can't have that sort of thing on an encyclopedia.
In order to remove ths redundancy, I think it would be best to simply remove the history and integrate it into the Heavy metal music article to fill out the evolution of subgenres. Right now the metal page works best in describing the subgenres (mainly because the List of hevay metal genres was merged into it not too long ago). I can personally merge the history sections without much effort. However, the subgenres might be a little too descriptive for what is essentially a list; their own articles are intended to describe and define them indepth anyways. The more that text can be reduced while still being informative, the better. Not just out of a redundancy concern, but out of space concerns (a few weeks ago that page was push the KB limit). Another suggestion is to simply rename the page "heavy metal subgenres", "Metal subgenres", "List of metal subgenres", etc. But then again, that would also remove the purpose of there being a page called metal music. I wouldn't mind, but others might mind and we still haven't sorted this whole thing out yet.
In the end, we are not the only ones working on Metal music. A large number of people have debated the topic since when I first signed up. Our best individual approach would be to provde sources on the topic in order to hopefully come to a conclusion. But until everyone else comes to an understanding between each other, I'm content to not edit either page too much beyond simple cleanup. Given the amount of passion attached to the subject I don't want to make any major changes that might cause an uproar, so I'd rather talk everything out before I do any major work on the page.
I noticed you commented on a few of the proposed principles and proposed remedies and suggested other things to do. If you have anything in the case that you'd suggest doing, feel free to go ahead and add another header for it. There are no restrictions on who does that on the Workshop page; just make sure to follow the template. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
The goth article
Hi. I've noticed that you have made a change to the effect that Satanic imagery is fashionable in goth culture, probably because of its association with black metal, which goths dislike or despise. This doesn't seem to make sense. Why would they be influenced by something they dislike? Could you change this sentence somehow to clarify what is intended? E.g. you might want to say that it is fashionable despite the association with a disliked form of metal, or whatever. (Btw, might any influence not come from classic metal of the Black Sabbath/Dio kind rather than from something as specific as black metal, which I understand to be something quite specific and associate mainly with Scandinavia? I'm just asking. I don't know the answer, and I'm sorry to display my ignorance. You seem to have a lot of expertise on this topic that I lack; I'm just a bit confused by the current sentence in the article.)
Hello, there is a request for mediation open between you, Leyasu, and Parasti here. If you are open to mediation with me as the mediator, all via email, drop me a note on my user talk page. --Improv02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration evidence...
When I first posted mine, I gave a caveat that it might be too long for the word limit, but yours is getting a lot longer. At the top of the page, the ArbCom said, "When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise.... Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective." We're both over 1000 words, but you should really cut back on the diffs. You're up to over 200 diffs. If you make your evidence too long, the arbitrators might not read all of it, and that could affect the decision they agree upon.
I noticed that you were concerned about my interpretation about the Children of Bodom diffs. Regarding that, the evidence page says, "Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues." I'm not ignoring the edits where you did follow policy; we're all told to focus on edits where contributors go against policy, so that the arbitrators know what to look for and exactly where they can find it.
Also, this comment that you made on the Evidence page borders on being a personal attack: "Concenring Idont's attacks at me and my edits on the Children of Bodom page, i point out that the users has disregarded sources in the same way as Dante, on the basis they do not count unless they agree with their POV ." I didn't say anything about that. When I write new articles, or revise articles on subjects that I know something about, I always consider as many points of view as I can find, provided that the sources look credible. I don't have to agree with the sources that I find; in fact, in some cases, it's important to go look for sources you don't agree with ("writing for the enemy"). I've edited articles on controversial topics where I had a stronger opinion; in those cases, except for one edit that I wish I hadn't made, I was saying, "The article reads like a rant", but rather than shifting the balance toward sources agreeing with my point of view (which I tried to leave out of the debate as much as possible), I wanted to ensure that all points of view were covered adequately. I wanted my opinion to be heard, but I didn't want to discount what the other editors on the page had been saying. As for the Children of Bodom debate, I don't have a POV; I've never even edited that article before. Aside from Gothic metal and Talk:Gothic metal, I haven't edited many metal-related pages here.
I fulfilled your request and blocked you, though I don't know if I'm allowed to do that, since we're in an arbcom case right now. I'm going to ask around and make sure that was ok to do. Thanks for telling me about it, though honestly, I'm not sure why you reverted that anonymous editor that many times anyway. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Please, this is getting out of hand. After your first 3RR block, you came right back and resumed edit warring over what really is an extremely trivial issue. Please find some way to compromise on this with the other editors; I'd really hate for this to end up in front of the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Before I do any more work
I would like you to take a look at this:
New What it should really be saying
Epica's The Score ~ An Epic Journey — was released in September 2005 many of the songs on the a album were made for a Netherlands movie called Joyride. Though it can also be seen as there thrid album. The album is influenced by the music of Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman. Characterised by guitarist, Mark Jansen, the album is "Typically Epica. Only without the singing, without the guitars, no bass and no drums".
Old what it should not be saying.
Epica's third album — The Score ~ An Epic Journey — was released in September 2005. Not following the style of previous releases, the album is reminiscent of epic film soundtracks and is influenced by the music of Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman. Characterised by guitarist, Mark Jansen, the album is "Typically Epica. Only without the singing, without the guitars, no bass and no drums"
The Score was never really there third album. All it really is, is a soundtrack for a movie in the Netherlands called Joyride. I think it would better if we put in what it really is so that any one who comes across it and want to pick up there CD's will see it for what it really is. I don't really want them to confuess it for there thrid album when it's not. by turemetalfan Feb 8, 2006 7:03 PM ET
I still put in there it can be looked at as there 3rd album. But for the sack of any new fan that comes along I would want them to know that they are not going to be getting some metal CD. I mean the way it read was that peopel would think that Epica was goind to be all over it. This way they will be able people will seee that is is A) a soundtrack and B) there 3rd album in away. But I look at it as for new fans look more into I just don't want them getting the wrong info about the CD. I mean really you know and I know and many other fans know that it is listed as there 3rd album.
Hello,
You have placed a {{mergeto}} tag in the Oriental metal article suggesting that it should be merged with the Symphonic Metal article but you did not place a {{mergefrom}} tag in the Symphonic Metal article nor did you start a discussion in any of the talk pages. I've placed a {{mergefrom}} tag in the Symphonic Metal article but if I don't see any arguments in favor of the merge soon, I'll be forced to remove it. Thank you --– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I just checked your contributions and realized that you meant to merge the Opera metal article instead and it makes a lot more sense. If this is the case please be careful were you place the merge tags. If it's not, please comment on why you want those articles merged. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
You can vote Opera metal for AFD if you want; I haven't read the article and I'm not really interested in it. I am interested in the Oriental Metal article though and I believe that it's a metal scene associated mostly with regional differences rather than with style. Articles such as Scandinavian death metal can be noted as articles that make such distintion. My point is not whether this article should or should not be merged, my point is that if you're going to propose a merge, you should post arguments on it in the talk page. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
On the matter of Gothic Hero I couldn't agree with you more. If you could write an essay in your userspace showing all the evidence you have of this user's sock puppetry, we could tag him as a suspected sock puppet. While writing this essay, consider the account creation date and his contributions. Although I will still place the tag on his user page I urge you to write the evidence as soon as possible and keep in mind that there's always the possibility that he might not be a sock puppet. --– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 06:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The sock puppet tag has been edited accordingly, now we must wait for the CheckUser request and then the sock puppet should be banned. We should still monitor Gothic Hero's contributions and try to find consensus whenever he edits articles. PS: Try not to break the 3RR yourself any more than you already have and try using some of the advice this essay provides on reverting (not just with this user but in general).--– sampi (talk•contrib•email) 21:06, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
The message near the top of Talk:Gothic metal - if I remember correctly, you had put it there - also needs to be updated. I don't know if you want to mention that it was the topic of an arbcom case or not. Maybe it is good to do that in case disputes arise there again, but the statement should be either updated or removed. Just letting you know. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Psst
I'm trying to build support for this nomination in iuts last few days. Please check out this page. Pass it along. Nudge nudge. -- evrik20:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
New wiki
You've confused me - you say you are a dominatrix but also have a user box saying you are "a male in support of feminism". Doesn't that contradict? Isn't a dominatrix always female? Just curious ;)
But what I actually came here for is to invite you to join in at a new wiki I'm working on. It's about depression, and I see you also have a depression userbox on your page. The wiki is over at Wikicities, which is another project of Jimbo's (and Angela's) and I want to develop it into a resource for people with depression and a wiki community. If you are interested, the url is http://depression.wikicities.com. Thanks -- sannse(talk)15:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Sadly it doesn't answer my question. I mean, obviously there are male dominants, I knew that naturally. But I understood the –trix suffix to be specifically female - and was confused by the box that said you were male. But, no matter, it was just curiosity, and I see now that you also have a "this user is female box". I apologise if my question and invitation caused offence. Regards -- sannse(talk)16:16, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I blocked you for 48 hours for massively violating your parole. Deathrocker got 24 hours for violating 3RR. Next time it will be for longer. Please obey the arbcom ruling. Violating it within a week of closure isn't the best way to show you've changed. --Woohookitty19:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
deathrocker
I don't really want to get into an edit war. And I know nothing of the band Moi dix mois. So I am not sure if I can be of any help here. However, staying away from the article might be a good idea for a while... Spearhead20:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Avoid Getting In Heated Disputes
I´ve just took the time to read your user page. Although we discussed some matters in the near past (on the Metal vs Heavy Metal merging...) I´ve never really tried to know who you were, perhaps because of the way you´ve stated your opinions. I´ve enjoyed a lot reading your user page. It seems now in retrospec that you did not "talk" that way out in arrogance, but rather because of a strong, free personality. I did also laugh a lot reading the To Do entry which stands for the title of this post of mine (Avoid Getting In Heated Disputes)... It was just incredibly fun to read!!! Hope you reach your goal (I did suffer from it a litle too, just see the talk page on the article Virtuoso and List of virtuosi performers to see what I´m talking about). You´re not alone into controversies... Regards Loudenvier20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Unblack metal
another nonsensical page. I put this up for afd; please vote on it here
The Arbitration Committee imposed restrictions on your ability to edit Misplaced Pages due to past behaviour on your part. Not withstanding that you have continued to engage in prohibited editing.
As a result you have been blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for as required by the ruling. Those restrictions placed on you by the Arbitration Committee were clear. If you continue to breach this arbcom ruling you will be subject to a longer block.
I am going to file a request for arbitration against Deathrocker. I am going to unblock you six hours early, but this is not an invitation to edit-war. I shall block you if you edit any article pertaining to any style of Metal. Sceptre18:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
SoothingR 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
SoothingR 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
