User talk:Musicaindustrial
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] My question to you
Musicaindustrial, why are you basically on the warpath with me? I always wonder why some people on wikipedia seem to love the feeling of lambasting people. Please don't personally attack me or try to belittle me in discussions. And as far as your removals, please be more civil and bring it up for discussion before you decide to go hurdy gurdy and delete things and take a vote on it. Thanks.DarrelClemmons (talk) 07:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Major restructuring of Rivethead
Hello, Musicaindustrial!
I have started reorganizing/rewriting the article "Rivethead", to make it
- As NPOV as possible.
- Confirm with the Manual of Style.
- Easier to read and maintain.
You seem to be a concerned editor and an expert in the topic. If you are interested in collaboration, please contact me. You can find the most recent draft of the changes I plan to make at my Sandbox. Feel free to ask any questions/make any suggestions on my talk page. :)
Thanks, --DJFishlips (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Welcome message
Welcome!
Hello, Musicaindustrial, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Lradrama 14:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Industrial Rock: Established Acts Which Experimented with the Genre
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Industrial Rock: Established Acts Which Experimented with the Genre, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Industrial Rock: Established Acts Which Experimented with the Genre. Hammer1980ยทtalk 20:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of List of established artists who have experimented with industrial rock
I have nominated List of established artists who have experimented with industrial rock, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of established artists who have experimented with industrial rock. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Ridernyc (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding the Death 'n' Roll article
In answer to your comment: in hindsight, I agree that the Unreferenced tag was unnecessary and that a 'more sources needed' would have been appropriate. Part of the reason for this is that many of the so-called references do not constitute reliable sources or are in fact blatant original research. This in fact is part of the problem with other sections of the article... Firstly, there is a big question over whether Metal Archives should be used as a reliable source for genre terms, but that has been or is being discussed elsewhere. However, it is not encyclopedic to list Metal Archives search results as a reference. Nor is it encyclopedic to place in the body of the text a comment regarding the use of wah-wah pedals in death 'n' roll with a misleading reference tag, which if followed leads to a lsit of albums that feature its use - this shows a misunderstanding of the use of references. Other kinds of references that are inappropriate for Wikipedia include 'forums'; in this case, this would include the sputnikmusic musicians' forum and, cardinal sin, making the statement that debate over the genre is occuring and linking to the Wikipedia talkpage! This demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Similarly, non-professionally published review articles must be avoided.
Finally, you are correct that blanking a page would constitute vandalism. Removing inappropriate content is not. However, if you are currently working to fix the problems inherent in the page then I have no problem with taking any further edits to talkpage discussion if there appears to be genuine controversy there and content is not in violation of Wikipedia policy. Hopefully we can get the article into a decent state as soon as possible. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
You have failed to address any of the issues relating to the death 'n' roll article. If a source is unreliable, just don't mention it. Flagging it as 'by Wikipedia standard this is less reliable' is not enough. Citing Metal Archives or Last.fm is as good as saying, "My mate in the pub who has his own website says this so therefore we should include it in an encyclopedia". I believe the term exists and is notable but further additions of non-[reliable sources]] can be viewed as vandalism. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry for the death'n'roll stuff
Just wanted to say that I can actually apreciate that though your views clash with mine about death'n'roll, not once did you edit or remove my post in the discussion, but you researched your arguement and addressed me directly. You're a good editor, better than me. Just telling you guys how much I apreciate even small gestures of good will. Keep it up.JackorKnave (talk) 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Arise on hold deadline
Usually, articles should be put on hold for seven days to ameliorate the article per suggestions during review. But if you're busy in real life, I can extend it to some considerable time allowance. --Efe (talk) 05:31, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ok. Agree. I'll give you two weeks since its "on hold" date to address all my suggestions. Good luck! =) --Efe (talk) 05:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Your right,
I'm sorry. Although I did leave a list issues to be fixed. And I really do feel that enough work it isn't up to GA standard yet. Maybe a "model" article would help you in the direction to go: Heaven Up Here is a recent GA I co-reviewed with Efe; I was quite impressed with that. indopug (talk) 20:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
