User talk:Navnløs/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

RE:Thanks

Yea, I know what you mean. It's a dirty job but someone (I) have to do it. :)

P.S. If you don't want to do citations you don't need to. When you're really lazy just refing the url would be enough because other editors will carry on and add the citations. --CircafuciX 00:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to comment on proxy page

Most editors familiar with that editor know his former name. I didn't think it was worth detailing. Lots of Wikipedians change their names for varying reasons. Usually because they started out using their real name and then decided that, since thats a bad idea... they had better change it. Some people can take this simple little project very seriously. There are many editors who have used their real names and revealed personal information about themselves only to find themselves being physically threatened by editors that they;ve pissed off. Or they've had scumbag lawyers chase after them. Or they've had they've been a victim of identity theft. So most users make up fancy false fake names for their accounts. In the end... being an IP is a more solid identification than any fairytale username. Some users have these big long bios about themselves boasting about all their editing credentials... which usually end up being bunk. Look at the former userpage for Daddy Kindsoul (alias the permanently banned Deathrocker) He claims to be an expert on music. But his music IQ wouldn't fill a thimble. He's gone and Wiki is a better place for it. 156.34.219.206 23:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The only entertainment I ever got out of Daddy Deathrocker was his battle with uber-troll Leyasu.(another permanently banned user) They fought tooth and nail over anything to do with Gothic metal and Avant-garde metal topics to the point where Leyasu got the hammer and Daddy D got a 1 rv only ruling (a verdict he ignored many times and contributed to his ban) He was always livid and on the hunt for Leyasu's 100+ user socks and IP socks. Now he himself has resorted to becoming a master of puppets. My old user page revealed very little about me. It said I was a former professional musician....and that I have a background in engineering... specifically asset management...and that I had taken my experience within this particular field and applied it to my current employment as a librarian. I actually have very little to do with books(although I have access to hundreds of thousands of books, magazines and music) I am good at keeping track of assets. Books, digital media, essays, documents, memos...anything that can be archived and used as a resource. I don't actually document anything. But I have the background to be able to tell others how to do it efficiently. The dewey decimal system is brilliant. Nowadays we just added steroids to it. I read voraciously. But I read very little paper. I have a large digital book collection. I don't believe the internet to be a very good source for Wiki refs. Just depends on what they are. Some are perfect. But in the music related articles most website refs are just amateur fansites and webzines. Heavy metal related articles are the absolute worst when it comes to this. Metal-archives and rockdetector and anything similar to them are just junk. They attract the 'lowest common denominator' of heavy metal fan to their devoted readership. And it translates into poor editing for Wikipedias heavy metal related articles. Hopefully it will change someday and better quality articles will be written. I feel sorry for the dedicated editors who've worked so hard to get the few Featured Articles related to heavy metal up to that status. Because once they get there... they attract a lot more attention from some of these "level 4" editors who ping back n forth between Wiki and metal archives. And, over time they start to destroy all the hard work that went into those FA's and eventually ruin them. Someday this project will be a "pedia". Right now... it's just Wiki. 156.34.219.206 00:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Judas Priest

It's looks like you've hit three reversions within a 24 hour period. Please be warned. the_undertow ^talk 23:48, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I only made two revisions and gave a good reason each time and some people won't stop vandalising the page. Navnløs 23:51, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[1], [2], [3]. If it's vandalism, as this seems like a stylistic debate, can you cite specifics in WP:MOS in regards to the reversions in your edit summaries and keep it civil? the_undertow ^talk 00:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

...

Dude. I thought you weren't too bad at first, in regards to the Judas Priest article, but seriously. Wiki's style guidelines changed, so get over it. It's commas now, not linebreaks. I just saw your contribution page. Holy crap, buddy. Take a chill pill. I agree that linebreaks look better, but if the community has spoken, then speak with them, lest ye be voted off the friggin' island. As it is, you're hitting the 3R rule, and it looks like you're wikistalking twsX, troll or not. Howa0082 03:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG, he's wikistalking ME! He went through my contributions and changed all these edits of mine, or just went to pages that I'd been to and changed everything to comma breaks! Navnløs 03:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

He's trying to prove a point...anything that has to do with nu metal or Amon Amarth, I am not to touch. He basically doesn't care what else I do as long as I don't change the genre delimiters on those pages or mess with them too much. If I mess w/ those pages (I usually do change Amon Amarth) then he basically goes on a rampage and goes through my contributions and changes pages I've been to. Navnløs 04:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have not once went through your contributions and edited anything in consequence. I do however find this discussion very amusing. Please, continue. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 10:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, you are either lying or it would have to be a huge coincidence, because ALL of those pages you went to and changed the genre delmiters, every single one of them, I had been to recently, which would lead me to believe you went through my contributions. How else would you explain that I was able to revert all of those edits? Because they were ALL on my watchlist!!! I only add pages to my watchlist which I have edited. Those pages had all been edited by me in the last week, oh yeah, and I couldn't help but notice you didn't edit any other pages that weren't ones I had edited recently, because I saw your contributions, and they were all only pages I had been to recently. Now how exactly would you explain that? Well, don't try to, because I already know. Navnløs (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention, I have a very unique taste in music, and its not possible you like exactly all the same bands as me. I bet there was quite a few of those bands you didn't even know. I know there's absolutely no way you went to the exact same pages as me by accident. Oh, you just happen to know Xasthur and Blind Guardian and Sarcofago and Wintersun, oh and you just happen to like Bestial Warlust, an article which I made like a month ago? Please, I don't need to hear such blatant lying, give me a little credit. Especially when you like mallcore. Navnløs (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be a good time now to Assume Good Faith Navnlos... "...I don't need to hear such blatant lying... especially when you like mallcore" - Ahem, comment on content etc. Scarian^Talk 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you interpreted that wrongly. He was lying, but I was not insulting the fact that he listens to mallcore (though I have a distatse for it), I was merely pointing out that because he liked mallcore he couldn't possibly like some of those bands. Which further supported that he was lying. So I was making a point, not insulting him. Navnløs (talk) 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh... by the by, I'm going to report you for constant mis-use of edit summaries. You have been repeatedly uncivil in them and plus you removed the warning I gave you for being uncivil and "subtley" indicated that I am a "dick". [4] Scarian^Talk 01:02, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't stop you from reporting me, however I do not agree that I am uncivil, though I admit I might have been on a couple occasions. And I NEVER implied that you were a dick. You keep minterpreting me. I was citing WP:DICK against twsx...not you. As for mis-use of edit summaries...huh? I don't understand what you mean by that. Navnløs (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Very entertaining; You have the bands listed in the first section of this very talk page. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 01:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, so you didn't look at my contributions you just went through a list on my page and changed all the bands' articles on it, that makes it SO much better. Well, at least you admitted it, I'll give you that. Navnløs (talk) 02:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Name change

For a name change, go to Wikipedia:Changing_username. You must provide a good reason for a name change and a username that doesn't exist. Use Special:Listusers to look up a username that doesn't exists (beware, red linked user names are also existing user names). I have been blocked once for 24 hours. It was a silly 3RR block and I think it wasn't fair as 1 of the reverts fixed some broken wiki lay-out bug present in Firefox and IE. Kameejl ^(Talk) 10:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Please try and stay civil. You're walking a fine line - I suggest you both go and have a nice cup of tea and a sit down! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that, and I make it a point to never start attacking people. I have only attacked people verbally in the past when they attack me. Also, my attacks are not exactly that big. The worst attack was when I called someone a "dick" because they were being extrememly harassing. I only used the word because I thought of WP:DICK. That is all. Also it is hard to sit down and have a cup of tea with someone who has already made it their mission to "get you". Navnløs (talk) 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, and try not to quote WP:DICK again! Now go and drink your tea. It's getting cold! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, ok sir. I have to say, though, the only reason I cited that particular document was because it seems like an awful lot of people do. *drinks tea* I must say I prefer pepsi or even water =) Navnløs (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Parsnip!

Self-professed Anglo-Christian "The Parsnip!" and his buddy keep coming around tearing down pictures from the black metal page, claiming there's no "rationale" for the use of images, even though the people/events depicted in them are heavily referenced in the article's cited text. What's the deal here? Because it's getting annoying. Logical Defense (talk) 06:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding on my page. Do you know any reliable admins that can be alerted about this? He reverted back to pointless tags once more. I wonder what his motive is to devalue the content of the article like that. Logical Defense (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Hey

I was unsure why you put it up for deletion because Funeral is right, you can't just delete an article that is either notable or worthy (maybe to certain people) just because it has no sources, that is the reason for the reference tag. I added an "expert" tag which should be made specific for what WikiProject topic it should be because metal won't be very specific in this case.

I also see a lot of articles getting deleted because of no sources and I often think the people are too lazy to make a quick search to see if the subject can be found or is notable enough as such with the Circle II Circle article where I added some simple references everywhere which were nearly obvious to find and they took off the tag as soon as they came to the page. I must note that I feel very strongly on deletion and to a lesser extent notability as a last thought course of action, I attack it wherever I see it.

Since the page is controversial I think adding a protection tag would help out as well and ease some of the madness taking place. It is really hard to find references for most music genres because most extreme genres are underground and almost means we need to rely on OR (original research) until some savior comes and finds a good reference for them. The thrash metal article is the only extreme metal article I see that has reliable references. I really would like to see the metalcore article controversy-free which is rather a longshot from now.

On a side note: And wow I just had a revelation writing this comment I tell you. It was like dejavu from some daydream I had before I ever edited wiki. --CircafuciX (talk) 03:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

To Funeral

Don't you warn me Funeral, I already warned YOU! I am not the one engaging in the edit war. Navnløs (talk) 00:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Already"?? You nearly broke the 3RR, so I left a template message... then you decided to copy n' paste that onto my talk page. And btw, use your account in future, don't edit under your high school's IP [again]. Funeral 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys. There has to be a way to work this out. Since there is no consensus on this issue, you are really going to have to use good discretion. I'd like to help each of you before edit warring gets people blocked. the_undertow ^talk 00:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I already told and warned you and I thought you understood. I found that originally both Judas Priest and Megadeth used line breaks. You and other users are not giving good reasons for editing those pages. If you want to argue for comma breaks, take it to the page, where they are having the debate, I gave you. I will rvert those pages as soon as I can since you and your cohorts cannot give a good explanation to change what is already fine. I'm busy and I can't argue with you now. Also, I'm not in high school and nor do I edit under other IP addresses, now you're just pissing me off! You are being uncivil and thick-headed. Navnløs (talk) 00:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Megadeth

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Megadeth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

TigerShark (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DUDE, why are you blocking me, I followed all the rules and Funeral and his little pals won't stop breaking them! They refuse to leave what is already fine, alone. You got to be kidding. I'm the one who reported Funeral an hour or so ago!! Navnløs (talk) 00:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

You asked before if I wanted an investigation, well now i do!!! They kept editing and citing the template of the music infobox, when they very well know they cannot do that, seeing as how that is a debate going on still. The rules are that until the debate is finished we don't edit pages that originally had comma edits and vice versa. Well both Megadeth and Judas Priest originally had line breaks!!! I even went to the trouble to look through the whole history and cite the dates!! Navnløs (talk) 00:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Again I understand your frustration but, as we previously discussed, getting involved with edit warring is not going to help. It is better to leave the articles with the formatting that you feel is wrong, and wait for a consensus to be reached and, if that doesn't happen, move on with the dispute resolution process. You seem to be getting involved with these constructive parts of the process, so please stay away from the non-constructive avenues. Edit warring is not going to solve this, because for every revert you make, somebody else will just revert back. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so you are telling me do nothing about it, whilst those users continue to do what they do, but I'm the one who shouldn't do anything, but its okay for them to continue their edit warring, and I should just sit idly by. I understand your reasoning that I might be in trouble, but why is it I get punished when others get nothing, and they're free to continue what they do. Why is it me getting punished, when it is not I who started the edit warring. Those pages were fine as they were until like a month or so ago when those users decided to change them, and whil I try to prevent them, they continued and now I get in trouble. That's justice. Navnløs (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is nothing to do with letting others do whatever they want, nor is it anything to do with "justice". This issue just needs to be resolved properly rather than by you attempting to enforce a decision yourself. If others are edit warring then they will end up being blocked too. Funeral was not blocked because I could not see that he had been warned, and I didn't see a clear 3RR violation. You, on the other hand, have been blocked before (so you know the 3RR policy) and you also broke the 3RR policy. Please just have a little bit of patience with the process and stop trying to "fix" it yourself. It really won't work, because if this carries on the version that "wins" will just be the version with the most determined editors rather than the version which is the best fit. Are you sure that you and others who support the version you prefer, are more determined than the editors who prefer the other version? If not, are you prepared to have the other side "win" via edit warring? If you honestly feel that there are good grounds for the version you support, keep arguing them and this will get resolved. Cheers TigerShark (talk) 00:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: What's a guy to do?

I've added a second example to the infobox template doc page. I hope this will stop the edit wars and show those who are so sentimental about commas there are other ways of neat and acceptable formating. I'm afraid it will move the edit war to the doc page but I thought if nobody does anything, nothing gets done. Kameejl ^(Talk) 14:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Armistice

Please take a look at Template_talk:Infobox_Musical_artist#Armistice, I thought you might be interested. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I couldn't help but help you out considering your edit summary. See this link to see how it's done and also when it's appropriate to do so. I never done that before either but it should help. Theres also a help desk too for further questions. --CircafuciX (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Worthy to be of service. :) --CircafuciX (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I actually been thinking about it. I would of joined but I'm not in the mood for debating right around the holidays. I am for line breaks but when I see these discussions on it, it's like talking to a brick wall of authority, nothing gets through to them that just a couple spaces won't ruin the article and it just feels like a lost cause. Articles are supposed to be made as long as they can get and the infobox shouldn't be shortened and cramped up together based on the 'equally as stupid' "can of worms theory", there should be more whitespace than textspace. Also, when genres get cut off I think there should be like a rule that states when this happens line breaks become favorable. Or, for the future, the box should get redesigned to make line breaks more favorable. --CircafuciX (talk) 19:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Out of curiosity

I take it you refer to my older sig, with (The Forest Whispers My Name) in it? Well, first off you go to "my preferences" at the top. There you can find what sig you want - make sure the "raw signature" box is ticked. Write your sig in there like it were normal wiki coding. For example, my current sig has the following coding: ≈ [[User: The Haunted Angel|<b><font color="#8000FF">The Haunted Angel</font></b>]] <small><u>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/The Haunted Angel 2|Review Me!]]</u></small>. Alter it as you would for whatever you want the sig to be - experiment on the sandbox or something. For the Cradle sig, I would have had something along the lines of [[User:The Haunted Angel|The Haunted Angel]] <sup>([[User talk:The Haunted Angel|The Forest Whispers My Name]]. Once you've saved it, typing ~~~~ will make whatever sig you've saved to appear. Hope that helps, dude! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

re: ?

Unreferenced opinions aren't facts...they're just that... unref'd pov. WP:ATT vios are common in fledgling articles... but when an article has been around for a while... the focus should switch from adding uncited original research... to trying to reference the content that's already there. That article is heavy laden enough with original research. It doesn't need any more. Having a ref from a reliable source for every single sentence is not a bad thing here. As long as the source is valid some not some teen chat room or blog... or coming from some amateur sh*t website like metal-archives or rockdetector. I can't stress it enough... the best references are from books and from pro publications. A direct quote from Rolling Stone about recent happenings in the thrash metal scene... with a citation... is a good thing. Adding an unreferenced pov comment with no ref... doesn't help build an encyclopedia. Hope that helps. 156.34.217.92 (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, one good tip to go by... 2 words that should never be used in an encyclopedia... "classic" and "virtuoso"... especially as adjectives. Both of those words are already way overused in the worst possible way in many music articles. Those two words can take a decent encyclopedia article and reduce it to a teen book report pretty quickly. Adjectives in general are taboo (unless they have a valid ref). If you want to make a positive contribution?... delete any/all uncited descriptors that you come across. 156.34.230.187 (talk) 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any sense by removing that paragraph. It doesnt need a source because it is fact. Those bands, such as Kreator, did release newer albums. Now if you're stuck on the word classic, they are not referring to the album as a classic but that the bands are classic thrash acts. If you would prefer older thrash metal bands, then I'll use that, though I dont see the difference. Navnløs (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said on 156.34.230.187's userpage, RockDetector is run by Sharpe-Younge. No amateur! He's one of heavy metal's most respected writers. It sounds as a source. (The Elfoid (talk) 16:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

My personal view is, they're classic bands. But the point I was making was that a source he denounced is acceptable. (The Elfoid (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC))

Metal Archives

What is your user name on Metal Archives. Mine is Burningclean. I got dursted for an unknown reason, it sucks I had 50 some points, makes me mad. Skeeker _[Talk] 22:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

You know...

I talked to a friend of mine and he's telling me that the anons starting with 56. (theres like 3 of them) is actually someone I know. It's really unsettling, he's following my edits and removing flags on a grand scale which I think the rules just escalate themselves and don't provide anything on specific projects (particularly music). The average person won't even care what the background rules are, for the fact, people even like to see flags there. Theres also no rule on use of flags in the artist infobox, WP:Music and other similar project 'guidelines' within that vein. I just don't believe in flagcruft anyway if I look past that it's a wikipedia policy, its one for the paranoid really. Removing them will just create a riot. --CircafuciX 23:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the fact that it's the same situation and that I actually know the guy scares me more than anything else. He was the last person I would of thought of to edit Wikipedia. It's my first time having to deal with this personally and I now know how your situation is a lot more. He also followed Kameejl but seems to be focused on me just because theres a greater chance that he will find similar edits. I wonder if we can get a well-meaning admin to follow them because it's just not right that they follow us like this and attack us wherever we step. It's just not right... I feel like I can't edit with some freedom for 2 weeks like it used to be, instead its maybe 1 or 2 days... If no other user/anon detests a change for awhile and only 1 does with great prejudice they are in the minority or... other users covering the article is low. --CircafuciX 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Bestial Warlust

I hope my last comment will stop the non sense :). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bestial Warlust (2nd nomination) Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Yo

No problem mate, I'll take a look at the users page and warn him if he continues to remove the templates - eventually he'll get banned :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion coming our way

User:Funeral has put the list of industrial metal artists and doom metal bands up for deletion, and soon every other list... I suggest showing what lists can do two-three times better than any category could. For example, adding their location or if they are/were one of the original bands of the genre, if they played the style early, mid or later on, list of albums by the bands that are within the genre and also bands that at some time played the style. Sure a category adds them there, but lists offer some different ways to list things. If you are for lists as well, I suggest giving some support (no comments there yet) and maybe Weltan should come as well. --CircafuciX (talk) 06:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Well not everything at once it will be a process that takes some time and effort to perform, but that is if they aren't deleted so hastefully. Now I just saw black metal listed, this deletion is getting out of hand... I added a comment that might stir some sense into them. --CircafuciX (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna be gone a while, I gotta be somwhere, but feel free to leave me a message about what happens. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I'll be watching the discussion like a night owl and tell you if there is some leeway or there is enough supporters (although it seems in deletion favor...). I don't understand them though a list can offer many lists in one and is sure a lot more helpful than a simple category. bye and try not to miss out! --CircafuciX (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of WP:CANVAS

"I already voted on the doom metal and black metal list, you should do the same." from [5]. "Should" is the imperative modal verb in the sentence; implying compliance. Also, in the context of your discussion with Circa., the connotations of your discussion are quite obviously breaching the policy. I suggest in future you avoid any language that could be perceived as canvassing. I'll repeat; even if you honestly didn't mean to, please try to avoid using words that can sound as if you're trying to persuade someone (or visa versa). Scarian^Talk 17:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I will be aware of that, but you're still wrong. "You should do the same" as in you should vote, I didn't say how. Also, even if I told him to vote with me he already stated he was of the same mind as me. He came to me saying he wanted the lists kept, and I told him I agreed and that I voted and he should do the same. As in "let your opinion be heard"...we were already of the same mind, so this convo is moot. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Caution

[6] - Please be careful when you refer to me like that. You know that sort of referencing is immature and derogatory. To prove that you meant it in good faith, I request that you strike "Don't worry about Scarian, he just wants his own way". If you choose not to strike it, I will take it as a personal attack (Which, by the way, you have been warned about before). Thanks in advance. Scarian^Talk 22:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)