User talk:Deathrocker/Archive 1

policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, please refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Roy A.A. 02:38, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Mallgoth.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mallgoth.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for unblock

Hello, I think a mistake has been made... I've been blocked for "vandalising" but haven't vandalised. [1].

On the S.S.C. Napoli there was some technical problems, the team had recently changed their name from Napoli Soccer back to S.S.C. Napoli and I was trying to red-direct the article...

But it wasn't working properly, another user had attempted to re-direct it too earlier but to no-avail CapPixel as the history shows. [2] He had also requested somebody re-direct it on the Napoli Soccer talkpage [3]... I managed to sort the article out now, but a confused admin seems to have blocked me? These were legit edits I'd like to be unblocked please, and an apology from the blocking admin (Royboycrashfan) for the mistake would be appreciated. - Deathrocker 08:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Request accepted. Roy A.A. 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As the request is accepted could you unblock me now please? - Deathrocker 19:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies

Hi Deathrocker! Thanks for your recent interest in the AfD of the 2006 World Cup controversies article. Your input is most appreciated. Since the AfD is now closed and the World Cup almost over, I'd like to encourage you to put some input into the improvement of this article, either by improving where you think you can, or by suggesting changes on the talk page. Kind regards, MyNameIsNotBob 03:29, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] block

You have been blocked for violating your revert parole on template:heavymetal. The IP range from which the edits came has also been blocked for 24 hours. Circeus 02:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this message is directed at Circeus, who was bullied by a blocked user Leyasu who was using a sock into blocking me. [4]

I haven't violated revert restrictions as claimed; ... if you look, I only twice removed edits from a blocked user who was using a sock [5][6] (the user admits the sockpuppetry here)... it states in the Official Wikipedia policy that removing edits made by blocked users who are using sockpuppets is an exception and isn't a counted revert. Thus I am requesting that the wrongful block be lifted.

- Deathrocker 02:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I have unblocked you. I wasn't quite aware at the moment that Leyasu was fully blocked. Sorry for the trouble. Circeus 02:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok... thanks. Its an easy mistake to make I suppose. - Deathrocker 02:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not used to doing this, and I admit problems keeping track of who is blocked for what and from what. Circeus 02:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, the unblock doesn't seem to have worked... I can still only edit my talkpage. - Deathrocker 02:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange. It is ogged properly [7]. Circeus 03:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thats better... the unblock has worked now. :) - Deathrocker 03:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden

Come on. "Jake D likes Cheetos"? That belongs in a wikipedia entry? --Zach Hammond 02:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:X-hide4.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 00:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:X-hide4.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:X-hide4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ShakiraRipoll cropped.jpg

This image is indeed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike license. Flickr pages state the image licensing at the right column on the page. If you look closer in the source link, you will be able to find a link that reads "Some Rights Reserved" (instead of the more common "All Rights Reserved"). The (mini) Creative Commons at the left of this text will link to the Attribution-Sharealike license text. Didn't you find that strange that there a were a lot of discussions on the talk page about the image and still no one never questioned the image license validity? Anyway, no one has the obligation to know the inner workings of Flickr.

Now, with your due permission, I'm reverting back the article for the version with the free image, and also marking the unfree image as obsolete again. Let me know if you still have any difficulties. Best regards, --Abu Badali 06:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Reply

OK... I see where it says that now, sorry for the miss-understanding. Using Flickr I will look for a more appropriate image however (which carries the same licensing as the other one).... as it is pretty clear via community concensus that people would like a different image, hopefully this aproach should sort it out. Regards. - Deathrocker 07:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. But if you find a good image that is tagged as All Rights Reserved, send a nice message to the owner asking him to release his image under a free license ("Attirbution" or "Attribuition-Sharealike"). Tell him about this marvelous thing that Wikipedia is and how it's contents must be free, etc... Believe me, people usually like the idea of having their image used on Wikipedia. See this list of images I've get from flickr after contacting the owner and asking for a free licensing.

But be carefull of copyrights violantion in Flickr. Take a look at the owner's profile to make sure he is a real photograper, and not just someone uploading files from some Website. I once commited the mistake to upload this image into Commons, as it's tagged as "Attribution" in flickr. It came out to be a copyright infringment of GettyImages, and it was deleted.

Well, good look with your search! Best wishes, --Abu Badali 07:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hummm, It seems that you did it. The image Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg unfortunatelly is a copyright violation from the Flickr user part. You may have missed it but, at the image's bottom right we still can read "Patrick Cooper/Retna Ltd". Patrick Cooper is a professional photographer, and Retna Ltd is a photo agency, i.e., a company that makes a living by licensing photos for a fee. The Flickr user Carlos Almendarez seems to be a diferent person than Mr. Cooper, and it's very unlike that his has anything to do with Retna. The picture name on Flickr, "Shakira_JPC_10" is probably making a mention to James Patrick Cooper. And as an last evidence, contrary to what happens to most photos of this Flickr user ([8],[9].[10],[11] to name the just first ones on his page), the Shakira image do not contains EXIF data.

I suggest you mark the image as {{imagevio}} and restore the free image to the Shakira article. I urge you no to feel disapointed and still keep trying to find a better free image for the article. As you said, it's the consensus that we need a better one. Let me know of anything in which I may be helpfull. Best regards, --Abu Badali 09:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You may be busy. I have put the free image back, as some user had already replaced your with an untagged one. You should still, as soon as you can, ask for the deletion of the Retna image. Best regards, --Abu Badali 18:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of RFD Tags

Please do not remove RFD tags, as you did with Mallgoth. The notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of a redirect. If you oppose the deletion of a redirect, you may comment at the respective page instead. This particular nomination has been closed as a keep and the redirect will not be deleted. -- JLaTondre 00:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop Punk Revival Merge Discussion

your quote: "Strong Keep... two entirely different forms of music which there have long been problems and disputes about the two being stuffed into the same article[1], would support renaming to Californian Pop punk or something similar. - Deathrocker 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)" what are the two different forms of music? as i see it there is punk and then there is pop punk.. i dont think there is any evidence or substantiation of "pop punk revival" as i see it pop punk has not died out yet, so there is nothing to revive. punk was basically done in 78/79.. but does still live on... however "true punk" is from before 1980.. yet dont forget that hardcore first mean "hardcore punk"... every band wants to claim their authenticity over the punk namesake... sheesh Xsxex 22:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:ShakiraPic2006.jpg listed for deletion

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:RicardoGardner.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RicardoGardner.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pop punk

Deathrocker, hey man, if you want to change something in the article i've been merging and reworking as decided by the discussion on talk:pop punk (revival) please add those comments in the talk:pop punk page so we can add them appropriately.. minor changes are fine to make on the actual article but the paragraph you rewrote has only added a few points. One point you added which we had decided was that infact The Ramones and other original punk rock groups can't be defined as pop punk but they can be described as pop punk. There will be a section which addresses the difference between the definition and the description in the page. However to state it here, a pop punk band must reference the original punk groups and the trends in contemporary music so therefore, this excludes the original punk groups. Let me know if you agree with this or if you have other thoughts on the issue. Xsxex 22:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Please check your messages and respond to what i've written to you. Also read talk:pop punk before making any significant changes. Thanks Xsxex 22:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, we already discussed this, the original punk rock bands were the pioneers but they CANT be called pop punk because they are DEFINED as punk rock. SOME of them can acurately be DESCRIBED as pop punk. The sources your have provided all use the term "pop punk" to describe either bands or more often specific songs (as in the case with the usage of "pop punk" on The Rezillos source.) As it seems, a band can only have one DEFINING genre, but many DESCRIPTIVE styles. This distinction between "definition" and "description" was brought to the conversation by Jmabel at the bottom of the talk:pop punk (revival) page. This is a significant distinction and i hope that it is one that you find acceptable. I have used this to reorganize the list of pop punk bands. Let me know if you think this is a step in the right direction. Xsxex 00:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Butt.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Butt.JPG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden

The neutrality of the article is disputed. I recommend leaving the pov tag or getting rid of the detractor section (I've editted it since writing this). I'd really like to avoid an edit war, I'm really not about that. --Zach Hammond 21:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:FDQStudio14.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FDQStudio14.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FLURL-dot-com-tn-10229-jemaxuk5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:VandalismCorrecter

Personally, I think you were right about this user. [12] [13]. I noticed VandalismCorrecter's user name (which is rather suspicious anyway, for a new user who's reverting edits that are not vandalism) on a few pages on my watchlist recently. A lot of the gothic metal pages are still on my watchlist, so I'll keep an eye on the situation through that. If that user continues to give you trouble, consider posting about it on WP:AE. It may be too late for a checkuser since Leyasu has been blocked for a while. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 18:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden

Please stop the edit war on this page. Until the issue is resolved on Talk:Aiden, stop editting it. Without linking to the article on Horror Rock, or explicitly calling Aiden's genre Horror Rock, mentioning that the band calls themselves Horror Rock (as the article did before your last edit) is a fair, factual compromise. --EndlessVince 20:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOFX introduction

I see you have reverted my edit of the NOFX introduction. I don't see why. The current introduction does not do justice with the band. The genre specification (skate/ska punk) is obviously incorrect (At least in my opinion), and summing up the band by saying they "use a lot of comedy" is just plain wrong. I hope you reconsider, the current introduction just does not look good. Ido50 00:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Outsider opinion: it looks to me like most of the content would have been fine, if it were cited. But it wasn't. --EndlessVince 06:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I used the following sources: * NOFX history on their official website * Punk ideology here on wikipedia. * Biography on nofxwiki.net. Citing them wouldn't be a problem...--Ido50 10:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Roadstar

Nice to see an article on this great band. I dabed The Answer to point to the band, and made a redirct at Hurricane Party to point to the article too. Nice work. exolon 17:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakiraaa.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me, or ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla 17:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pop punk intro sentence

• Deathrocker, i think we have this relatively established, if you feel we need a footnote there, (which i agree, would be ideal) than maybe help do some research or come up with a better intro sentence. thanx. Xsxex 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocked

You have been blocked for one week for this personal attack. You are well aware that Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks. --Yamla 14:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

How is that considered a "Personal attack"?, that is the person who put the hostile note on there which went against community consensus in the first place[14], the side note merely make clear which user to take it up with. I suggest you learn what a personal attack is.

Second learn the Wikipedia policy, if it is considered a personal attack, then I request to be unblocked as you are not following the proper policy stated here, it says that only in extreme cases is a block aplicable under disruption, this is not an extreme case and in no way warrants a week block, and you did not even give a warning first, this was merely me going by community conesus[15] and was hardly a scathing comment.

Also, Yamla (talk • contribs) made a false statement in the line for reasons blocked, he stated "Continued personal attacks"... when this was the only incident, it seems he is new to adminship, but he should learn the Wiki policies before taking any action. - Deathrocker 15:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You have been warned repeatedly about personal attacks. Are you trying to claim that you did not understand that personal attacks were inappropriate? This account has a history of bickering, disruption, revert warring, etc. Now, if you can provide some reason for me to believe you will start acting in a civil manner and will refrain from actions of these natures, I would consider unblocking you. --Yamla 15:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please show me diffs where I have been warned about person attacks relatating to this incident?, you aren't following the correct Wikipedia policy plain and simple. And as for reasons regards "refraining from actions of revert warining, or any breaking of policy", check the dates on my block log history... the history of "revert warring" was from a long time ago. thanks. - Deathrocker 15:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You weren't warned about this incident. This should not be necessary as you have been warned about personal attacks before. --Yamla 15:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how the note was a "personal attack", as described here?... and in any case, if it somehow slimly managed to count as a "person attack" it is not "extreme" and is certainly not warranting a block (let alone a week block), the extreme cases are the time a block should be applied acording to that policy. I have absolutely no problem adhereing to civlity in the future, it would just be nice if admins knew the policy before they handed out blocks in the first place, see what I'm saying?. - Deathrocker 16:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you have been unblocked because of your promise to remain civil in the future, though I dislike your attempt at wikilawyering here. --Yamla 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

By the way, the Werdnabot can auto-archive pages for you if you wish. I find it easier than archiving by hand. Let me know if you want more information. --Yamla 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music

Whats up? Hi, I'm trying to gather some more interest and support for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Punk music. Please check out the topics and lets get our WikiProject to function better. I've taken an interest in the Wikipedia:WikiProject hip hop and I consider that WikiProject to be better developed. Hopefully we can all work together to improve articles relating to punk. Also, I am trying to gather support and opinions concerning the punk house article and specifically the Theta Beta Potata article which is currently in AfD (x2) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theta Beta Potata (second nomination). Please check it out and voice your opinion. Xsxex 06:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Shakiraaa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakiraaa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impersonation

I write to inform you that somebody is impersonating you wit this edit [[16]] from this ip: 207.179.133.131. However if it is you please log in. so as to avoid confussion. Best Regards -- Angelbo 11:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Complaint filed at WP:AE

A Leyasu sock has filed a complaint against you at Arbitration enforcement. While I am not inclined to recommend action at this point, it does look like you have edited while logged out from several different IP address including 156.34.142.158 (talk • contribs • WHOIS), 207.179.133.131 (talk • contribs • WHOIS) and 216.21.150.44 (talk • contribs • WHOIS). It certainly gives the impression that you are trying to hide something. Perhaps there is an innocent explanation? Thatcher131 (talk) 18:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning pop punk ^{[citation needed]} tag

• Deathrocker, Ok, when you explained it like that it helps to understand what you've looking for. Here's what my response is; while it is true that the majority of the "contemporary pop punk" bands draw much more from mid 90s pop punk, this article is not only about them. The article is about pop punk and since it is the bands from the early 80s (Descendents to Vandals to Weasel to Green Day etc, etc,)... the introduction applies most strongly to them, which makes sense because, one could say, they are the "original pop punk bands." Also most of the bands from the "Independent pop punk" section will also continue to draw from the original punk rock groups. It is these bands which are basically the bands which can be defined as pop punk, whereas the "Contemporary pop punk" groups are actually combining pop punk with other musical influences, many of which are coming from pop music. The reason they can be mentioned here is because since they are referencing the original pop punk bands (i.e. Green Day, Offspring, Descendents, Weasel, Queers, etc...). One would think that a band which draws from or is a descendent (no pun intended) of the original pop punk bands would have the potential to be considered, at least, in part as pop punk. This is actually the case as many of these newer bands are described, in part, as pop punk. Usually their sound is also combined with other musical genres, influences, and styles. I am going to take down the ^{[citation needed]} tag, but I DO want to continue this discussion if you feel or if others feel that this is not a convincing counterpoint. Post responses below right here. Thanx! Xsxex 11:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MCR- Not Goth?

Why did you delete my bit on My Chemical Romance? I think that the dressing in black and make-up thing with their image, in addition to the death-based lyrics, are a stereotypically goth thing. What makes you disagree? Not having a go at you or anything, just wanted to know your motives Valkyrie Missile

Yeah, I understand that, music-wise I think they're more post-hardcore than anything. But I really do think their image is goth. I mean, they wear nothing but black & red, they wear lots of make-up, they always appear angry/depressed. You don't think that's typical of Goth culture?

Yeah, admittedly it's not the same as Goth culture in the 1980s but, come on, musical genres and cultures change in 20-odd years! Just cause MCR aren't The Cure or whatever, doesn't mean they're not Goth in a modern sense.

[edit] Sockpuppet

Whats this leyasu sock puppet thing? I'm actually not a 'meat puppet' either, as I contacted Leyasu about the article first. Unless, of course, you can figure out a reason why leyasu would create a sockpuppet to discuss optical fibre articles... Fred138

[edit] Wayne Hall

I am trying to disambiguate links to the Hatfield page - but I'm afraid I know nothing about football. Did Wayne Hall play for Hatfield Town F.C. in Hertfordshire, or Hatfield Main F.C. in Doncaster? Thanks CarolGray 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NOFX

I wasnt critisizing the choice of skate punk or punk rock genre, just that the ska genre doesnt apply to NOFX as a "defining" genre. I just put Punk Rock as the most generic genre, seeing skatepunk as a subgenre as long as skapunk etc. --Against 23:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A7X

Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! HawkerTyphoon 18:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood, but please note that major edits marked as minor will set off many an automatic revert in anti-vandal programs! HawkerTyphoon 18:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] #9 on WP:FUC

Hi, Deathrocker. Please, remember that according to item #9 on WP:FUC, we can't claim fair use when using images outside of articles. Best regards, --Abu Badali 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:MichaelOwenNewcastle.jpg listed for deletion

Do not remove this template again. Regardless of your feelings on the validity of it, removing templates is vandalism, and if you do it again, it will be dealt with accordingly. --InShaneee 17:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:CreepsPromo2006.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:CreepsPromo2006.gif. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:05, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Casper2k3 02:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VampireFreaks.com

Please stop reverting the article and participate in the discussion in the talk page. --Neurophyre^(talk) 15:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden...

Let's talk about the best way to mention the Horror Rock issue on the Aiden article. I really don't think your latest edit sounds NPOV. I think it sounds somewhat persuasive, which isn't necessary. Also, what was objectionable about my edit that you reverted? I believe it said the same thing, only made the article sound more informative than persuasive. An informative edit summary when things are changed would be helpful in these situations. Your thoughts? --EndlessVince 23:08, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A7X Page

It's not relevant. You make the fact that their touring with a metalcore band a bad thing.

Also, they've cancelled all tours after October, if you would have read my post that replaced yours.

[edit] Please reply!

Please don't ignore my posts on your talk page. Maybe you overlooked it the first time. I asked why you reverted my edit to the Aiden article. My original post on your talk page: Let's talk about the best way to mention the Horror Rock issue on the Aiden article. I really don't think your latest edit sounds NPOV. I think it sounds somewhat persuasive, which isn't necessary. Also, what was objectionable about my edit that you reverted? I believe it said the same thing, only made the article sound more informative than persuasive. An informative edit summary when things are changed would also be helpful in these situations. --EndlessVince 02:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Message from a vandal

Please stop edit warring on articles, without discussing your points on the talk page first, this is a violation of Wikipedia policies. Evenfiel 15:11, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aiden

It is highly debatable if that band play that style of music (compare them to any of the other bands in the genre, they have nothing to do with them or their style).. it needs to be emphasised that they are not somehow part of that scene or even accepted amongst it, rather they are among the metalcore, post hardcore and other Warped Tour affilated bands and fan bases. Also some anon keeps vandalising the article changing their genre to things that don't exist, not sure why. - Deathrocker 02:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the nuisance genre-vandalism. But the phrase "highly debatable" carries a biased connotation (as does or even). I agree on the fact that Aiden isn't Horror Rock, but letting the facts speak for themselves works, in this case, to portray the truth that their genre is in fact not Horror Rock. No special emphasis is necessary, when the facts spell out the truth well enough. Again, please reply. --EndlessVince 03:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violating your 1RR parole regarding Encyclopedia Metallum. I am also looking into the actions of other editors. Thatcher131 02:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replyed

As the admin said, "knock it off, ok?"Evenfiel 15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The article to which I reverted to is pretty much the same article that you wrote before being blocked. If you don't agree with it, I'll have to report you for breaking your parole. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Encyclopaedia_Metallum&diff=77966200&oldid=77953149 this is both your and mine edit combined. If we can't agreed on everything, you'll have to give something and I'll do the same. Evenfiel 16:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll report you.Evenfiel 16:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you'll have to explain that to them. Evenfiel 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, you'll have to explain that to them, not me. Evenfiel 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Warning: You have violated your revert parole on Encyclopaedia Metallum with these edits [17] [18] [19]. If you revert the article again, you will be blocked for 48 hours.

I am in agreement with Tony Fox's comment on the administrators' noticeboard [20] that this is a content dispute, not simple vandalism. You are arguing over how much the article should focus on the exclusion of one particular band. Evenfiel is not simply blanking the Led Zepplin section, he is rearranging the content and trimming it, but leaving the essential fact [21]. As a content dispute you are expected to negotiate in good faith to arrive at a compromise. If you can not compromise, you should seek outside comment through a request for comment or third opinion. You are not permitted to simply revert to your preferred version, and calling a content dispute "vandalism" is not appropriate. I could have blocked you without warning, as you were just blocked 2 days ago for the same thing and you are well aware of the rules. I'm giving you a last chance to figure this out without taking the relatively drastic, but sometimes necessary, step of blocking you. Thatcher131 14:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages

Hello Deathrocker! I noticed you've been adding the {{talkheader}} template to many pages. I wanted to call your attention to the Template:Talkheader page, which states that "This template should be used only when needed.... If the message is on every talk page, its impact will be reduced." However, you have added this template to some pages that seem (to me) somewhat small and uncontroversial (Jean Fabre, Valentine Dencausse, Nicolas Desmarets, Geoffrey Dauphy, etc.). I was wondering about your rationale on these, and pages like these in general. Thanks a lot! Dar-Ape 22:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk pages tag

Hello again! I see you've archived my previous message, meaning you've read it. I would really like to hear from you about this. If, however, you do not explain why you chose do add the {{talkheader}} template to many pages that did not seem to need it, I may consider these as going against current Template:Talkheader policy and revert your changes. Hope I can discuss this with you! Thanks, Dar-Ape 00:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Leyasu

Leyasu is editing under the block(as you are more than aware) as Fred138 (talk • contribs). You tagged that user quite a while ago and I have attempted to monitor the user's edits. I rv'd "Fred" last night on the List of gothic metal bands article(twice). I reported him(her) to WP:ANI as well but sometimes that place can get backlogged and small time trolls like Leyasu slip through the cracks. I can't rv the list article anymore without going 3RR. I know you are under scrutiny on your own rv's but if you could take a look at that article, or even throw a comment over at ANI it would be a great help. Thanks! Fair Deal 10:39, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Italian Football

Hi ya. I see you add to Italian Football articles from time to time. Just wondering if you want to check out Wikipedia:Italian Football. We are just hoping to organise our efforts towards improving articles better. If you want to sign up just put your name down under participants on the project. You can do as much or as little work as you like and any ideas on improving pages would be great. Niall123 19:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for sticking up for me in the deletion pages to Abu. I appreciate it.--CyberGhostface 17:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tags on talk pages

I'm just letting you know I have begun to remove the template {{talkheader}} for the reasons I have already explained. If you have any objections, don't hesitate to let me know! (This will be the last time I talk to you about this if you do not contact me.) Dar-Ape 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of heavy metal bands

Hi Deathrocker,

I just reverted your recent modifications to the list of heavy metal bands. Please don't be offended, I didn't mean it in a bad way. I just think that we should have some kind of discussion before doing such a major rewrite. Your format was good, but I think that something is lost in the change. There are a certain number of bands which, unfortunately, don't fit nicely into a single genre. Take Cradle of Filth for example; it keeps getting added and removed from the list of black metal bands. At least, no one could argue about it being in the list of heavy metal bands. The same thing applies to a vast number of bands, famous and less so.

I really liked your summary format, however a lot of that information can already be found at Category:Metal subgenres (alright, in a less polished style, and maybe not quite as accessible to new users). But if in the list of heavy metal genres there was a link to the band lists as well as the main article, this problem would be solved. As to the "original movement", most of that info can be found on the heavy metal music article (although not in list form).

On the other hand, there is no single article, category or list that lists all of the bands pertaining to the heavy metal genre. This information is therefore lost by your recent changes.

I guess the two formats could co-exist in the same article (maybe that would look a bit messy), or there could be two articles: a 'disambiguation' kind of article (your format) and a 'complete' list (the old format). This sounds like a reasonable middle ground to me. What do you think? IronChris | (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 48 hour block

You have been blocked for 48 hours for violations of WP:NPA. Durova^Charge! 01:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The user I was blocked for so called violation of WP:NPA against Panarjedde (talk • contribs), has being severly testing the patience of myself and that of other users such as User:Kingjeff. Not only has he being adding inapropriate tags to images to wind people up,[22][23], making alterations to my user page which I did not permit,[24][25] mocking me & my beliefs, on my talkpage in Italian[26] he has also made a personal attack, calling me a "coward".[27]... How is it acceptable that I am blocked when I was the one who was provoked and attacked in the first place, by a user who has a recent history of similar antics?[28] - Deathrocker 01:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potential bad faith

To the deciding admin, You might want to look at if this was a bad faith report from Panarjedde. I know this might not be unreasonable to think. Kingjeff 02:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your block

I left a message with the blocking admin. I told him he should review his decision more closely regarding Panarjedde complaint as we both know what he's all about. Kingjeff 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.. its apreciated. - Deathrocker 02:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The coward remark is a big dent into his credibility. I think this directly shows that my claims about his bad faith are true. Kingjeff 02:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nightmoves (band)

This was a non-notable band as per the criteria set out in WP:Music. Perhaps Myspace is a better location for this information. (aeropagitica) 09:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block review

OK... so what you're saying is, one set of rules for one user... an entirely different set for another. If a user (in this case Panarjedde (talk • contribs)) decides to follow me around, winding me up... and violates the NPA policy (as I proved above with diffs). That is perfectly acceptable?.. no block for him. But if in retaliation I (barely) violate NPA.. then I get a blocked slapped on me?... how is this equal? - Deathrocker 18:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, there is one set of rules for everyone. What I am saying is that your statement that you made personal attacks because of the other user's behaviour does not exempt you from policy on personal attacks. The other user's behaviour is a whole different ball game. If the other user stalks, harasses you and violates NPA, then there are procedures you should follow and they don't include launching into personal attacks of your own. There are policies and guidelines in place to protect you from harassment stalking etc., some of the ones that sound like they are relevant to you are: guidelines against harassment and stalking, policy on civility and personal attacks.

Can you tell me from your point of view what happened that lead to your being blocked? You say that you "barely violated NPA" can you please expand on this further. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Youcan help me overturn his deletion of my image that our good buddy got deleted. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 9. Kingjeff 19:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Jeff, with regard to the images, it looks like it was deleted as a matter of policy, in which case there is nothing that I can do about it. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 20:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought your block up with them on PAIN and they say it is influenced by your past record. I don't have any experience on that forum so I am defering to what they say. If you want someone to review that other person, I think you should write your own report with diffs and post it here. You should be very careful in future or you are going to end up being blocked constantly. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 01:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I've invited Kingjeff to post a report at WP:RFI. Durova^Charge! 05:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Putting a protection notice on a page does not protect it. That can only be done by an admin and there is not enough vandlism on that page to warrent protection. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

"Sourced material"? Just because something is written on the internet doesn't mean its accurate (especially when the band itself shows its inaccurate). Try researching a subject BEFORE thinking you're qualified to write about it. The text you keep posting is WRONG. What don't you understand about this?

Again, lies written online do not constitute valid sources. And why do you keep ignoring what I write? I have repeatedly urged you to research this stuff yourself rather than some bogus quick purusal of some ex-live member's page (a guy known to be dishonest)? Check the LAM Online community. Everything I say is there direct from Sean and LAM live members themselves. That, along with the LAM website, are my sources.

[edit] Blocked

Blocked: 48 hours for violating your 1RR parole imposed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. I know there are some problems with Blipblip's edits, but that doesn't justify a parole violation. Sorry. I'll comment to all sides on the article talk page. Thatcher131 02:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note that at the end of October you violated the 1RR parole on Aiden, Mallcore, and The Black Parade.[29] I intended to block you then but got distracted and by the time I came back I figured the moment had passed. That, plus this [30] comment just after a block for personal attacks were factors in my choice of 48 hours rather than 24. Thatcher131 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your continual misinformation on the LAM page

Deathrocker- So much of your information is wrong. Why do you insist on editing pages if you know nothing about the subject? Stop editing the LAM page. Not only have you destroyed the bio which had been posted today, your info amounts to a bland recital of tour dates and CD releases (which are inaccurate and incomplete). You refuse to understand that LAM is Sean Brennan and the live members are ONLY LIVE MEMBERS and should be referred to as such if you insist on listing them. Your propaganda about Covet has been refuted by Areklett himself (search the LAM myspace group and the LAM Online Community for proof of this), if you'd only bother to research this you'd know it. Why yuou don't bother to actually research a reputable source is beyond me. The Cure are not an influence, no one ever claimed they were. Your mistakes go on and on. You don't know what you're talking about so why pretend that you do?

[edit] Your continual misinformation on the LAM page part 2

Listen, I actually know the band so I know the history. You don't I am not arguing date of formation or who played in the live line up when. I suggest you re-read everything I have written with an open mind rather than being so mindnumbingly confrontational and maybe you'd get my point. You refuse to listen to my words. You seriously need to actually READ what I say and understand it. I have provided an interesting and informative bio today which you destroyed for the tired thing YOU ripped from Yahoo (who got their info from Allmusciguide). For example- why cite the Polish magazine as a reference that LAM was part of the goth scene? You totally missed the point with that and missed a fairly major aspect of LAM's life by editing out what many magazines have claimed- that LAM helped to revive goth in the US. Also, LAM's Psycho Magnet was written and being performed live in 1993, long before Manson ever became popular. You really have no concept of this band and are not qualified to be writing about them. Your page amounts to a recital of tour dates. My bio had some interesting things on how the media views LAM and some factual information. In no way was I trying to present an "LAM is great" page. I was speaking fact. Your bio has wrong information and irrelevant information. Mine doesn't since I WORKED for the band and know the history. Why not leave this to people who actually know what they are talking about?

[edit] Your continual misinformation on the LAM page part 3

Live music is different than what's on record? Yeah- because one is live, and one is recorded. What's your point? And LAM is essentially an occasional recording project, not a full time live band, otherwise there would have been much more extensive touring and real band members who contribute to the band.

I never claimed LAM was industrial. YOU were the one who claimed something along those lines and then implied LAM was jumping on a bandwagon. The fact is LAM's music from Psycho Magnet was being performed live as early as 1993 (before Manson was known outside Florida). Also, read this from "LEGENDS magazine (USA) 1998: "considering that LAM has been around longer than Marilyn Manson and Psychotica, its clear who's ripping off who". Why didnt you know this? If you think you're qualified to edit these band pages then you should have all the facts and stop inserting personal opinion. The fact that you added your opinion implying that LAM was jumping on a Manson bandwagon when I've cited a source that says the opposite shows you just aren't doing research OR want to write negative things. (BTW- I could easily inform you that Manson came to see LAM perform at Helter Skelter in 1992. But I have no online source for this, except my own eyes).

See I am the one who is adding unbiased third party information to the discussion. I have done so repeatedly. You are continually adding your own opinion (then you claim I am the one trying to write a biased article when I'm not, but you're doing the opposite in that you are willingly using misinformation and pesonal opinion). You clearly are NOT reading what I write which is likely why you keep getting banned and are always in arguments with people. I mean, is that fun to you?

You are simply not as informed as you think you are. The info you have was originally ripped off the LAM website! It was butchered by AllMusicGuide "Gothic Beauty Magazine, USA, Autumn 2005 issue" and re-distributed to every online bio source (like the Yahoo one you referenced). Your bio is nothing but a regurgitation of an old version of the band's website bio page that was taken out of context and messed up by allmusicguide "Gothic Beauty Magazine, USA, Autumn 2005 issue". Its bland, tour dates and nothing more. Then you add in weird stuff about the Cure being an influence, about LAM not being poitical (ignoring the 1991 song Revenge and history of LAM's literature) about Tamlyn, etc... This is meaningless to anyone who wants to know what LAM actually IS. My bio illustrated what LAM actually IS.

See my point here is that you just aren't listening and think that being pointlessly negative or refusing to correct misinformation is the proper way to write. Its not. Your commentary and critique is uninformed is baseless. I'm surely not the smarmy one here.

The fact is I have provided you with all the info you need (you refuse to acknowledge this). I have told you where to find the information you seek. If you're too lazy to do this then don't pretend to be qualified to edit the wiki page. Since you wanted to get involved in this its YOUR responsibility to fully research a subject prior to editing any wiki page. Repeating lies you've heard or writing out personal opinion or assumption and then asking that they be debunked is not only doing things backwards but totally unprofessional.

And you are the one who can't back up what you claim with credible sources (like fans being upset, LAM ripping off Manson, Tamlyn forming LAM with Brennan, etc, etc). See the LAM website and LAM Online COmmunity if you need some factual information. . You seriously need to actually read what I say and understand my objections.

[edit] Part 4

1. As I said most of Psycho Magnet was being performed live as early as 1993 (and several songs were released in 1994 on tape- see official discography on LAM site). Were you unawre of this? I guess you were. So why do you feel qualified to say anything about the band being that you have so few facts? Being that you are saying that industrial NIN/Manson type bands peaked in 96 LAM was ahead of the curve, right? I mean 1993 is 3 years before 1996, right? The point was you were implying LAM was jumping on a bandwagon. If you knew the history and some facts you'd know this wasn't the case. Perhaps it was your wording and you didn't intend it like that. But that's how it read. Seriously - your writing is not very good.

2. You said LAM were part of the "club scene". LAM was not part of the CLUB scene. LAM was and remains a popular draw at clubs, but was and is not part of any club scene. To say this paints LAM as club rats. Again you need to READ what I write and try to understand people's objections rather than jumping to conclusions. You need to word things better not be so stubborn about getting your way when you're clearly not qualified to be writing this stuff. The cover from NBC is useless information that means nothing. What about all the other covers Sean has done? Do you even know any? Why not list them? I had a detailed bio written today that explained a lot about important aspects of the history of LAM, the philosophy, all backed up by third party unbiased sources. Yet you think that citing which covers LAM released and some random tour dates is more important?!

3. The fact that you've been banned multiple times and threatened with a year long ban illustrates how you're regularly unwilling and unable to work with people to edit pages on Wikipedia (in other words YOU'RE the brick wall). You insist on your way or the highway and that's not constructive, especially since you have a very limited knowledge of LAM and have taken your "facts" from websites I've shown to be wrong (and you write very sloppily and poorly). Read the official history of LAM on the LAM website. It explains how LAM is Sean and the "live members vary". Do you understand what that means? I mean, to ignore this obvious and easily accessible source of fact and then deny that such information exists proves you have done no research at all.

4. Regarding Areklett- it seems the focus of your rewrite was to promote his former project (which was never a viable project and does not even exist) and to put down LAM. Your information about Mike's songs supposedly destined for LAM was taken from the Covet myspace page and has been refuted elsewhere- I've told you where you can find this information. I've explained this was untrue and later taken back by Mike himself and refuted by Sean (I think Mike even did so in his very own blog, perhaps on his personal page). Yet you refuse to do the research to see if your info is valid.

Talking to you is like talking to the Great Wall of China. Seriously, if you don't know that much about the band you need to back off. If you truly are interested in making the article good- meaning INFORMATIVE and CORRECT- you would have left the version I posted earlier today (Wikipedia restored the basic article after the banning of the other day- I just modified that with the requested citations) and maybe just added the tour dates you're so eager to present. If you care, which you obviously seem to, then please stop posting untrue stuff, personal opinion, and insults, and stop blaming me for your mistakes.

PLEASE stop editing the page. Janus was never part of the band.

[edit] Part 5

Hey YOU blanked MY page from today. Remember that? Or do other people not matter to you? Yet you're the one who is infuriated that all your work was erased? I think you need to rethink your assessment of who is being self aggrandizing (in action at least). You seem to be a little self obsessed and refuse to allow anyone but you to have input. You have changed nothing with your articles even after I've pointed out major mistakes you've made. I blanked your page because it was so full of inaccuracies it was impossible to edit and maintain anything somewhat readable. You blanked my page from earlier today. Yet you think that was fine. My page contained actual content, unlike yours. I am not trolling. YOU are the one with a history of trolling, and you are the one who refuses to remove false or misleading information and personal opinion from your writing.

[edit] Personal attacks against User:Blipblip

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 14:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LAM

Some quick comments because I theoretically am at work now.

1. Please try and find some outside help for the article. I don't think Blipblip yet has a handle on what makes a good article, and he has conflict of interest issues. Deathrocker is perhaps overly aggressive in removing material and has revert limitations. Some other editors would provide additional perspective and could rescue parts of Blipblip's contributions that are worth rescuing.
2. Bibliographic citations need at a minimum the name of the source (like a magazine), date and page number. Including the article title and author name are preferred, like this: (Jan Wenner, "Rock sucks." Rolling Stone, June 31, 2007, page 44). Linking to the magazine's homepage is of no value—direct link to the article if it is freely available on line, otherwise don't link at all, just give the bibliographic details. Linking to transcripts on another web site is prohibited unless the site has permission to repost the information. Transcripts of magazine articles are probably copyright violations and we do not link to external sites that violate copyright. Again, provide the bibliographic information.
3. If a magazine publishes an interview, and the band's web site posts the "longer, unedited" version, the parts that are only in the band's version fall under the Self-published sources section of the reliable source policy.
4. Blipblip and Deathrocker need to talk about some of the disputed information on the article talk page for others to evaluate and make the edits. I am thinking specifically here about the issue of whether the band is a one-man project (kind of like Boston (band)) or a multi-person band; and the issue of the former bass player. I think it would be acceptable to discuss the issue of the bass player using Brennan and Areklett personal blogs as sources, since they are writing about themselves, but I would like a third opinion on that. In any case, the Neutral point of view policy requires that if the issue is dicussed, both sides need to be presented fairly. If an outside reader can detect the wikipedia article taking sides in the matter, that is a violation. It would be better to report what some third party reliable source has to say about the matter, if one can be found.
5. Deathrocker can not revert the article more than once per day or twice per week, but he can make useful edits that are not reversions. For example, the current version is poorly wikified, and the references need to formatted per WP:FOOTNOTES. Some additions that you might disagree with in the long run could still be rewritten for style and tone without removing significant content. And of course discuss it on the talk page. Of course, if the net result of many minor formatting edits is to reduce the article back to Deathrocker's perferred version, or something close to it, that's a revert violation, but he know that. He may prefer to play it safe and see if any outside editors agree with him. (Even people with whom he argues on some topics but who are knowledgable about music might be helpful here--hint hint.)

I'll look in on this over the weekend and see how you are doing. Thatcher131 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LAM page- PLEASE stop editing this page. Your information is WRONG, poorly worded and misspelled=

Deathrocker- your version of the page is not useable. Your assertion that the majority of LAM music is sexual in nature shows you havent read the lyrics. Best Nightmare is a sexual comedy. Bondage Song has nothing to do with sex! Why are you just making up stuff??? You continually misunderstand the original (my) article; LAM is a profoundly political entity and ALWAYS has been. NO WHERE has it been said that the music and lyrics are entirely political. Your assertions that the band has only recently become political are WRONG- Your assertions that "Sean claims" others don't write for LAM is also wrong. This is proven is my original sources. "Ice" was one instrumental song that Sean asked Tamlyn to compose for the release of Oddities. I've corrected that line. However your general tone is negative and is unwarranted. You are implying LAM isn't what it is and implying Brennan is lying about something. This is not the case. You continue to refer to LAM as a "group" or "band", its more accurately described as a "project" because it has no members that contribute to the functioning of the project. Words like "their" etc don't belong. Your spelling leaves something to be desired, there are several made up words, poor grammar and useless information so I've changed some of this. Your chronology of live members is completely wrong. Janus never played with LAM. It will be removed. Your chronology of press coverage is also all wrong. It will be edited. You seriously need to actually READ my version as you have discarded the most important aspects and you continually make the same mistakes with yours. You have removed important descriptive information on the band and substituted garbage like a recital of tour dates. What good does that do? Your chronology of releases (under recent times) is also completely WRONG. DO SOME RESEARCH or stop editing the page!

[edit] You're wrong part 2

You have NOT researched the article. How do you explain all the mistakes I keep pointing out?

Proof you don't read what I write- The bondage song is NOT ABOUT SEX. This is the second time I've had to tell you yet you act like I never informed you of this fact! Have you ever read the lyrics? Email Sean and ask him what its about.

The edited out portions were either wrong, useless (like cover songs), was unsourced or pointless. I mean to butcher what I had written to add stuff about a NBC cover is nonsensical.

I am in no way being mean. However you have been terribly rude to me. I pointed out the FACT that your spelling is very poor - something you should fix before posting articles to Wikipedia, dont you think? It was a point to illustrate how you're not doing all you should to make your work here top-notch. Sorry, no I fixed all spelling mistakes. I think I resaved it once before I fixed the spelling mistakes, and it had several other errors in it as well. Perhaps rather than be so ultra-defensive you should learn the facts. And you had more than one word misspelled.

No bassist or drummer played on Scenes

Hawkins was in the live band until 1991 then came back in 2001. Your chronology is wrong! Your knowledge is lacking.

No one ever said LAM was part of punk rock (early form) but the later DIY punk scene that reached all the way into the late 80s and early 90s. Are you entirely unaware of this scene? Of how political it was? LAM was very much a part off this scene. In Los Angeles this scene was the only local music scene there was spawning bands like Rage Against the Machine, etc.

An attitude adjustment is needed here- but not by me.

[edit] episode three=

This shows you are totally unaware of the facts of LAM's birth, Brennan's philosophy, the time period, etc. No one said LAM was part of the punk scene. I said LAM incorporated that aspect of the punk movement, which is very true and was very real. Have you ever heard of Ben is Dead? Are you familiar with the LA local music scene of the 80s and 90s? Are you at all familiar with any bands in the late 80s and early 90s who were inspired by the punk movement who were very political? If not then you seriously need to go to school. Also- you seriously need to work on your reading skills. See, you are taking an adversarial approach to this and then trying to blame others. This is blinding you from being able to understand other people's points.

Spelling- I accidentally saved a page with one misspelling (I meant to preview it, not save it and I had hardly even bothered with correcting your spelling yet). Every single article you've posted has had multiple misspellings, poor grammar, awkward sentences, not to mention fiction. Compare your older version with one that's up now as an example of where I corrected several of your misspelled words.

I removed the bit about the cover because its awkward reading. Why mention this one song out of so many songs? I edited it for clarity sake. Its just a sore thumb,, reading-wise, that's all. Nothing more.

The Bondage song is NOT ABOUT SEX. Have you ever heard of art? The song is about control. The bondage aspect is a metaphor- but where does it describe sex acts? No where. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of poetry should be able to spot this. Even so, saying the majority of the music is sexual because you think one song refers to sexual bondage acts is quite strange. See- you're just not getting it. I really am beyond dealing with you because you refuse to work with others which is why you've been banned so often from Wikipedia, been on probation and been warned with a year long ban.

And my article stated that the live members "typically do not play on recordings". This is fact.

Deathrocker: in an effort to de-escalate this tit-for-tat, abiding by Wikipedia rules of engagement for dispute resolution, I will take for the sake of argument your position that MC began at the moment the four, original members adopted the MC monicker. If this is the standard by which the band's history begins, which is not the universal position (i.e. some sites consider the first rehearsals with other members the start of what became MC), then you are right that Greg Leon, et al, were not ever "in" MC. This is why I have not edited the MC site in the last 24 hours to re-add the "former members". However, I would urge you to again read the wording of the GL page - you'll find, as I've pointed that, that it states "involved"...this is accurate as Tommy's introduction and first rehearsals with GL are a) post-Suite 19 (considerable time had gone by since S19, as Lee had long since been replaced by Gary Holland, later of Great White, and by the time of these rehearsals S19 didn't exist), b) the rehearsals featured both later MC music (written by Sixx) and GL music, and c) GL and Sixx have both claimed that not continuing to work together was a mutual decision (though some sites say GL quit or that Sixx fired him). This makes GL's choice of leaving what was quickly turning into MC unwise, as his other choices to leave Dokken, Quit Riot, Rough Cutt, etc...hence GL's reputation for odd career moves and his redeaming novelty (beyond his reputation for guitar prowess, cited by folks such as Lee). A Sniper

[edit] LAM

As much as i dislike you, when it comes to the LAM article your not actually causing the problem. As such ive contacted an admin called Oden, seeking help from him in dealing with Blip. As current on top of this, we need to create the temp page, porting over what i mocked up - which i suggest doing purely for the basis of progress from both of yew. Other than that, if Blip continues to be offensive, report him on WP:AN and ill second it; as as you know, my patience is extremely thin.

[edit] RoboCrouch

..Love the Crouch-robot-dancing animation here. Thanks. Have a great day. :) ← ANAS ^Talk 19:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP Munich

Kingjeff 19:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:NightmovesBandLogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NightmovesBandLogo.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 16:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What are your thoughts on this?

I read your comments and the article on LAM, and the edit war that occurred. There's a similar but longer edit war for Midnight_Syndicate, and I was just wondering what you might think. Nothing to vote on there. I'm just trying to get a feel for what might be the right direction on this. Also, no one ever commented on the Rfc, so, whatever. Talk:Midnight_Syndicate (see archive too). If you don't want to get involved in the article, rsvp on my talk pg. I'm just curious for an outsider opinion. Thanks. Peacekpr 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually User:Durova commented on the RfC, stop stating falsehoods as facts. [31] Dionyseus 21:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind Dionyseus, he's been stalking every post I make. (I'm flattered, really). I'm just looking for a NON-biased opinion. Another editor on the incidents page did not think the article even met WP:MUSIC for notability, so I wonder what you think of that, and of the two opposing views, seeing as it is similar to the LAM article you had problems with. And, no one ever did comment on Rfc, unless you count the sockpuppet votes. Peacekpr 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do not strike out my comment, you have no right to do that. And despite your claims to the contrary, User:Durova did comment on the Request for Comment as I have noted above. Dionyseus 05:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Peacekpr, if you are really interested in being a peacekeeper and working out the issues between the apparent current and former band members, you can start by being nice to all sides, and especially Dionyseus who, like you claim to be, is not a partisan on either side. Thatcher131 05:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker, sorry to have mucked up your talk page. I think I have a right to ask a non-involved party his opinion. Thatcher, I am just trying to get a feel for who the editors are and the main points of contention, and Dionyseus seems to be stalking my every post, checking my IP as I check others, etc. I've not even edited anything, so a sock check was uncalled for, but I don't care. I don't intend to edit. I intended to get the others to agree on something. And Durovo did comment, stating he/she did not have enough time to devote to an involved discussion or to editing or verifying the material. Durova made some suggestions to cite references for disputed content, which was done by GuardianZ, but then it was removed by Skinny McGee and Dionyseus. Not one single other editor commented, and the only people to vote were those waring. It seemed pointless. I can't help but see the article as a promotional venue for the band. I don't think any of it, except maybe the very first opening, paragraph was NOR. Peacekpr 14:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HIM (band)

Do you bother to read edit summaries before reverting? semper fi — Moe 18:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do. And you should have seen my comment which stated in the case of articles being confused that it should be stated at the beginning of the article [to help with the disambiguation], not the end treated like trivia. Not only that, but you reverted other edits other than that, like removing the sprotected2 template, and other minor clean-up to the article. semper fi — Moe 19:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Heavy Metal Bands

I didn't realize that Iron Maiden were in the revert. I actually agree that they weren't part of the Original Movement. I was simply making it so LZ, Queen, and Steppenwolf had the ^{[citation needed]} tag next to them. --Inhumer 19:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You have been blocked

Following your revert parole and subsequent edit warring at Glam metal, I've had to block you for 24 hours. Please make use of the {{unblock}} template, if you'd like to contest this. Sorry. Luna Santin 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)