User talk:Leon Sword

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because of certain personal issues, Leon Sword will not be on Wikipedia for an unspecified period of time.
Notice
Notice: To whom it may concern,
I will always post my replies to your messages on your talk page not mine.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Leon Sword, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON Let's talk | done 01:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Flames

Hello. The term "peacocking" refers to the sub-article of the Wikipedia:Manual of style, Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. I hope this explains it. Some other good articles to read while you are at it are Wikipedia:Words to avoid and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words. Thanks. --Ryan Delaney talk 04:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding this change, which changes are you referring to? I know you rewrote the entire article (good work) but I hope you realize you don't WP:OWN it. (For what it's worth, I think it was better before you reverted it.) --PEJL 20:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, the dash change is in line with WP:DASH. I don't what reason you had for removing the external links, or reformatting the existing ones. One of the reasons I added the additional links was to show the standard format for these types of links, which I also changed the existing links to use. --PEJL 20:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So why did you revert everything if you only wanted to revert some changes? As for the descriptive content, saying "Session musician during the recording sessions of" for every entry under a section called "Session musicians" seems a little redundant to me too. (Also, repeatedly linking "Session musician" is redundant per WP:EL.) Just as redundant as it would be to say "Former member during the time xxx–yyy" instead of just "xxx–yyy" for each entry in the "Former members" section. --PEJL 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't actually say that they can be spaced when used with dates, it says they can be spaced when used with complex statements. I'd argue that none of the uses in this article are complex statements (certainly not statements like "1999–2000"). This is also in line with how these dashes are used in Wikipedia in general, in my experience. Links to spam sites should never be included (again per WP:EL), so I don't think it's necessary to mention which links are not such. (BTW, sorry about the ref mixup.) --PEJL 20:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well again, I don't think it's a question of dates versus numbers but of complex statements (such as a date containing spaces) versus simple statements (such as a date not containing spaces, for example a year). I agree that WP:DASH is quite vague on the topic. Incidentally, this guideline is being rewritten (see draft) in a way to make this clearer: "All disjunctive en dashes are unspaced, except when there is a space within either or both of the items". As for the other external links, I don't particularily care for them, I just included them to show the standard formatting of such links. I do note that artist articles often contain these types of links. To sum up, which changes exactly do you now object to? I'd like to revert the rest back. --PEJL 21:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, done. --PEJL 21:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Grammy versus Grammis, I was looking at the English and Swedish Wikipedia articles on the awards, both imply that the awards are named Grammis, not Grammy. As for the source, it may very well not be using the correct term, possibly referring to "the Swedish version of the Grammy Awards" sloppily as "the Swedish Grammy awards". (Also, the source doesn't include any such text at the moment, it's been pushed off to an archive page.) --PEJL 23:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, what the band calls the award is really irrelevant, what is relevant is what the award is actually called. The source uses sentences like "At the Swedish Grammy Award Show yesterday, In Flames won their third Grammy , this time for best Hardrock.", which shows that the text haven't been copy-edited very thoroughly. --PEJL 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
No, that is wrong. Like I said, what the awards are referred to as in interviews and such is irrelevant. What is relevant is what they are actually called. The awards show is called Grammisgalan in Swedish (literally "The Grammis Gala"). The awards (prizes) themselves are called "Grammis" (singular) and "Grammisar" (plural). Check the official website (linked from the Wikipedia article, but in Swedish). Informally in English these awards are referred to as Swedish Grammy awards, for purposes of explaining what they are to people not aware of the Grammis awards but aware of Grammy awards. They are never informally referred to as Grammy awards in Swedish. HTH, I'll leave this topic for now. --PEJL 00:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that "Grammy" is often used in English as the name for awards from Grammisgalan. That doesn't make it correct, or even legal, to do so. Unless they have permission from The Grammy Awards, for Grammisgalan to name their awards Grammy would likely be a trademark violation. (It's a registered trademark, see official website of The Grammy Awards.) The idea that Grammisgalan would have permission to use the "Grammy" name, but only choose to use it in English, a language they don't care enough to include a single page in on their website, seems very unlikely. --PEJL 04:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

My point wasn't to decide whether what the sources write is appropriate or not, it was to show that it is highly unlikely that the correct name is "Grammy" as you suggest, because that would be trademark violation, and would likely have resulted in legal action from The Grammy Awards against Grammisgalan for using that name as the official name. I feel I've showed you within reasonable doubt that the correct name is "Grammis" not "Grammy", but that you for some reason are not willing to accept this, and that trying to convince you further would be futile. By referring to them as "Grammy" you (the Wikipedia editor) and we (the Wikipedia project) are performing a trademark violation. I don't feel comfortable taking part in that, so I won't be editing this article further. Do what you think is best. --PEJL 20:00, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
No, I have shown that they couldn't be officially named "Grammy" in English, because that would be a trademark violation. I don't dispute that a number of secondary sources refer to them as such. That doesn't make it correct though. Like I said, I will leave this topic here. --PEJL 20:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
That's much better. My main concern has been resolved. I just have one minor issue. I don't see why Grammis should be in quotes at the first instance. That is not consistent with how proper names are presented in Wikipedia in general. --PEJL 07:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I wonder if that rule about italicizing foreign terms really applies to proper names. I can't recall seeing foreign proper names italicized anywhere else. In general I think it would be difficult to determine whether a proper name is foreign or not, given that it can be anything, that might not make any sense as a word in any language. WP:MOSTM says nothing about italicizing (but doesn't say not to either). On the other hand, having it italicized looks far less "wrong" to me than having it quoted, so maybe I should just shut up... ;-) --PEJL 20:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Shoot, I totally forgot about those logos. I'll get them up soon. Also, yeah, I read the Mikael Stanne thing after I put him back in... my mistake. = ∫tc 5th Eye 03:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northmen (band)

User:Desperadoxd's responsible for articles about that band; I just moved his/her material (previously on Northmen, which should really be and is now a redirect) to Northmen (band), and credited him/her in the page history (did I cut corners or was that all right?). But thanks anyway. I'll notify him/her about Wikipedia:Notability (music). Uthanc 18:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Iron Maidens

Like what you did with the infobox. But as the bands management, the band has stated that they don't have interest in bringing the past or former members anymore to the forefront than what they are on the page. They have a mention at the bottom and the band feels that is sufficeient as they had little or no hand in what the band has done in the last couple years. If you want to add disography or equipment used in the infobox at a glance that would be great. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.231.198.136 (talk • contribs) 01:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Subpages

Hi, I have saved the info on my subpages and put a speedy deletion tag on those that caused some trouble. However, I think that the userbox should stay, because I have seen many other userboxes whose info were on user subpages. I am however dissapointed that I did nto have a chance to save the info on the Deranged subpage, for I have spent a lot of time working on it. :) Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 18:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I've heard some of their stuff, and I have to say that it's pretty good. I'm probably going to download one of their albums soon enough. Zouavman Le Zouave (Talk to me! • O)))) 07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gates of Ishtar

Greetings! Other than the multiple red links, what still needs cleaning up/copyediting on this page? --Otheus 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Logos

Thanks for linking me the example image. I've added a rationale to each of the logos I've recently uploaded, I would be very appreciative if you could quickly look them over. They're all the same as Image:Warmen logo.png, other than the mentioned article... I hope they're okay. Tobz1000 03:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear... I must be tired. Thanks for cleaning it up for me - I'll do the rest of them now. And I knew about linking to an image, I guess I just missed the colon out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tobz1000 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
That's fine, delete it. The article it was used on has been deleted due to notability issues. Tobz1000 11:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Detonation (band)

Hey Leon, wondering why you re-added the clean-up tags? I've been re-writing major parts of the biography, corrected most errors and poured it into a standard shape of other band pages I've been looking into. I'm a band member of Detonation so all info is first-hand. Otto.svdo 15:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SilvaStorm

A warning has been issued. The editor will likely listen to it. If he doesn't, please inform me ASAP. --Sn0wflake 16:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Leon Sword, no hard feelings - that post on .NERGAL's page was a joke between me and him, as he has told me that you've been opposing a lot of his edits lately. I apologise if it's bothered you in any way. -- SilvaStorm

[edit] Apocalyptica

As you may not know, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and thus the content needs to be presented clearly. Putting the picture in the biography makes little sence as it disforms the text. The pictures are only there to provide some illustration. The right place for this, is where the picture fits, that is, next to the discography. Secondly, having the information about Antero playing live in the same sentence as where you put the dates he played in the band, shows a lack of view on structure. It is important this information is presented clearly and a new sentence is required. In an encyclopedia, the more information, the better. If presented clearly, the information that Max now plays in Hevein is important and extremely interesting for the readers. I will give you the opportunity to revert your edits, but stress that you do this quick, as the Apocalyptica-page is now not presentable. LAUBO 14:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flaw (band)

Flaw is actually my favorite band and I know how much their albums sold because I've seen it on all their web sites and message boards as well as billboard websites, so I think I know. It looks terrible like it is and whoever changed it from what it used to be should be banned from Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.186.56.72 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Alright well there probably should be a page created for Chris Volz seeing as how he is having a solo project come out in the Fall and is already signed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.186.56.72 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] External links

Hey. Regarding your edit summaries when removing links to Encyclopaedia Metallum, please do not accuse established good faith editors of spamming. Links to this website have been added, in almost all cases, by the article creators and/or other editors with the intention of improving the encyclopedia and not to promote EM. Thanks, Prolog 00:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Yes, this website is often not a reliable source and often also an unnecessary external link anyway, but what I'm saying is that your edit summaries, linking to WP:SPAM and WP:WPSPAM, are inappropriate because links to the website have not been and are not being spammed by anyone. So there is a difference between removing spam links and removing other links that do not meet WP:EL. Prolog 01:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey again. Thanks for creating the Tfd, but please do not remove the template from articles before the discussion is over. That pretty much nullifies the whole point of the discussion, and unused templates are usually deleted anyway. Since you have removed it from most articles now, I recommend that you revert yourself, or I can do it for you with a rollback if you want me to. I'll also put a Tfdnote at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal, as these have been discussed there previously. Thanks, Prolog 01:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't revert then because I do not think the links are that useful. However, I do think that this needs more discussion, as it does not make sense to have a few editors removing links and a few dozen more adding them. And there are a lot of these links; like film articles are created with a link to IMDb (unreliable source), most metal band articles seem to be created with a link to this website. Prolog 05:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Motör Militia

Hi, I help maintain the Motör Militia article here on wikipedia. Could you elaborate a little on the changes that should be made to the article to make it satisfactory? Also, is it OK to at least put the Metal Archives profile of the band in the links section? Edit: OK, I got rid of the excessive wording, fixed the headers, and made the article generally more concise--getting rid of some useless things. Is it OK now? What else should be done? In A Conundrum 11:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Saw your edits, they are generally good. Please tell me what else should be done/I can do by leaving a message on my Talk page asap, thank you. In A Conundrum 20:17, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm. Yes, I see what you're talking about with the peacock terms. I tried fixing those, and will go over the article again for further inspection. Also, the reason the article doesn't state anything about the album or getting signed is actually because I haven't finished the article yet--which is why there were unused titles before you edited the article. Soon enough you'll see the new sections, as I will begin work on them shortly--the band's history outside of their school has hardly been covered, and I just felt it was important to note their early days leading up to their success. Can you please elaborate on what goes into a "members section"? Is it just biographies of the band members individually? I will go ahead and try to edit the article further, making sure it stays relevant to the subject. In the mean time I will also try to start finishing the article soon, keeping these guidelines in mind. Go ahead and make some edits to the article if you want, and I'll show you what I have done when I'm finished. Also, in the lead I added "one of the first metal bands of their genre in the Persian Gulf/Middle East area" because its more accurate than "one of the first metal bands in the Persian Gulf/Middle East area." There are a handful of metal bands in the middle east that have released albums (they're mostly black metal), although none of them have ever been signed or released through a label. Motor Militia are actually the first Thrash Metal band in the Mid East to release a full length album of original material on an Independent label, something no other thrash band in the area had done at that point. In A Conundrum 20:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Glad I could help! If you're interested, Motor Militia is actually mentioned in an article in the newest issue of Terrorizer magazine (www.terrorizer.com) as part of a story on heavy metal in the middle east. They have a paragraph to themselves and a picture too. In A Conundrum 20:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, now I see what you meant by putting a members section in. OK, I'll start work on cleaning up the article and finishing it soon. Can I remove the cleanup tag now, or does it have to stay there? In A Conundrum 20:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vanik Vartanian

Hey dude can u plz take look at this article,I made contact with vanik in internet and he told all the info in his article in wikipedia is fake, for example: band Sad Mad Bad Lad doesnot exsit and he has never appeared as a backup drummer for System of a Down and slipknot, he wasnt born in Lebnon and and look at the Trivia of this article, its just ridiculous, look at this one "Vanik tired of the Iranian Government's involvement in every move of Kahtmayan and quit the band" yes he quit the band but not because he got tired of goverment, where are sorces of these Informations? I do believe all these informations are fake, I think we should delete his article but I dont know how to do that, Plz help me out. Joojoo ra 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zonaria

Yeah, I wasn't sure if it had been attempted before or not. I know they're not the most "notable" acts so to speak but I figured it is worth a try. Also, thanks for the tips. I kind of just tend to edit. Anyways, I figure they're a bit more notable than the last 3 entries, because of the fact that the last 3 entries were before their record signing and such. Shatterzer0 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infernal Method (band)

Leon, I've thought for some time this entry should be removed. The band has links to several more significant Australian (and at least one Norwegian) bands but this probably isn't enough to make it "notable" and a brief overview of IM could be worked into another entry. BrianFG 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The band could be notable with respect to parts 6 and 7 of WP:MUSIC inasmuch as several members were/are members of other notable acts and that they were the best known act of their kind on Sydney's metal music scene for about five years. I could edit the entry to show this. BrianFG 02:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I've redone it to establish notability but if it still doesn't cut the mustard, it's no biggie. BrianFG 02:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers

Waddup. i've recently come down with a bad case of FairUseitis and was really just checking with you that it was ok to run with yr format to stop my pictures getting nixed. best, tomasz. 02:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

much appreciated, man, thanks. tomasz. 14:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rotting (band)

A lot of the zine publications they were featured in are out of print (old issues from the 90s, early 00s and whatnot) - how can I prove these to be factual evidence that they'd gotten press? I'm not the type of person that keeps obsolete magazines. :) I can tell you just about every magazine that wrote about them, but I can't exactly provide a scan. The Forgotten really isn't a compilation album, I don't know why Metal Archives posted that. It's the demos released officially with new studio tracks. (To me, that isn't a compilation, but rather an official release of old/new material). No worries about the links you're posting, it's helping me understand how the wikipedia world works. Rotting9

[edit] Schecter Guitar Research

Hi Leon, I notice you've made a lot of edits to the Schecter Guitar Research page - David is my brother! I am pretty new to Wiki and don't edit much myself (also, even though he's my brother I don't have much info to add to his page!) but wanted to make contact with you, and thank you for keeping an eye on it for factual editing. --Martha 17:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

So, are you in touch with David? or would you like to be? I really don't know how interested he is in being involved with this, but he might be. I could perhaps put you in touch, if you'd like, but I don't want to do that on a public page, isn't there a way to send a private message to a wiki person? --02:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Bingo! you're on with your suggestion - I'll let him know, but can't say how he'll respond! (clearly, I don't get into Wiki every day....) -Martha 16:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pucho & His Latin Soul Brothers

Did you even bother researching this before you tagged it for a lack of notability? Did you, for instance, check my reference? My guess is you think the lack of an exsisting article about Henry "Pucho" Brown makes this article not notable? I suppose I'll add that a young Chick Corea appeared in this group. Brown himself, in fact, is notable and therefore his band is notable. Please, don't tag articles when you don't know what you are doing. (Mind meal 02:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC))

Well Leon, truthfully the article asserted notability the moment it stated it was the band of Henry Pucho Brown. Like someone starting a stub for the band Cream for instance, and simply stating it was an Eric Clapton band. Obviously you don't know who Pucho is, but that is just it. Your ignorance was no grounds for speedy deletion. As for taking it up with the person who deleted it, I've done that. The discussion is at deletion review. Anyway, you may generally do a good job but in my opinion you really failed in this case. (Mind meal 03:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Children of Bodom

I have made a proposal topic on the genre debate with evidence. I went almost a month without a proper challenge to my proposal and went ahead and made changes and noted my changes. I will keep your revert for now, but I want you to properly challenge me in the Bodom discussion if you could. Otherwise, please don't revert. Supercodes 02:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Text boxes

Hello, thank you for helping me out with that unreasonable user. I hope you are not gone too long on wikipedia as you are a good user. I was wondering if you knew how to make a roughly medium sized text box, because I would like to make text boxes for things such as a contributions box and stuff like that, I would like for my userpage look nice. Once again thank you. Skeeker [Talk] 05:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, I found what I was looking for from browsing around. Skeeker [Talk] 03:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I have seen your recent edit on Darkest Hour that Metal Archives is not a reliable source. It's understandable. But what would be a good and reliable source example that can help these kinds of genre situations? Thank you for looking and hoping for a response back. Thank you again. With regards... NaotoATG 06:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Metal archives might not be the best source, it is a source that can be used until better ones are found. Unlike you said, metal-archives is not as open as a wiki, all changes are done through change requests that are checked thoroughly before they are applied. If you think some bands in the list are wrongly labeled "gothic" (by metal archives) then discuss them rather than deleting the sources (that's how it has been done successfully a few times now, just look at the talk page). Deleting the sources, albeit not 100% reliable ones (however, I asked about metal archives on the WP metal project and it seems to be an accepted source) isn't doing any good for anyone. The list was full of crap and since the sources are there it a more stable and reliable list. Emmaneul (Talk) 11:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Why didn't you address any of my arguments? Again, you just deleted the sources saying MA is not a good source. There is no statement on WP implying MA can never be used as source, it's a dubious source, but it's not totally crap. It is in fact a peer reviewed site with editorial oversight (2 things a questionable source has not, according to WP:VER). Like I said, some editors think it can be used. The troubles you had with editors regarding MA are not applicable to this list, this is a different issue that should be handled differently. Instead of deleting you could spend time improving, by looking for better sources. The list was there before the sources were introduced so the bands in the list were considered gothic by editors before, now they are considered gothic by editors and by MA. It may not be the best improvement but you cannot deny it is an improvement. If some of the listed bands shouldn't be in list (so both the editors and MA are wrong) then removing the sources is not gonna solve that problem, discussion will. Emmaneul (Talk) 23:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
MA still is a peer reviewed site with editorial oversight and not like you believe "a very biased open wiki anyone can edit". No ordinary user can edit genres, only about 20 moderators can (out of 84000+ contributors). The moderators policy is to be careful with genres, to thoroughly check them and to keep them up-to-date. I can't find any policy or guideline on WP stating these kind of sites are unreliable (No, really, WP:V/WP:RS don't). I don't always agree with their genres, they're not always correct. Just like rockdetector, allmusic or whatever third party site. You may not be the only editor who has expressed concerns about MA, but you're probably the only one who's deleting any ref to MA preventively, just because it's MA. (by the way, the editor that expressed his concerns on the talk page was immediately proven wrong (and MA was proven right) by the band itself and a couple of German metal magazines). I'll revert you again, and continue to find and add other sources, primarily when an editor (who probably knows the band better than I do) discusses/deletes a band. That is a constructive system and it worked perfectly, until you came around. Emmaneul (Talk) 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've now added Rockdetector refs instead of MA refs to the bands in the gothic metal band part. Most bands were regarded as gothic metal by Rockdetector, other sources were found for the rest. I don't want to whine, but MA got a 100% score... isn't that a good indication of MA's reliability? Emmaneul (Talk) 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy (band)

I see absolutely no claim in the article that fits criteria #4 nor more than one appropriate reliable source (#1). As to #5, I'm also not convinced that the label in question is one of the "more important" indy labels. I'm aware of the criteria and believe my template use was justified. If you assert that there are undocumented sources or undocumented tours and that the label on which the albums were released is an important one, that's fine. I don't plan on re-applying the template. I do take issue with the "misuse" description, though. Erechtheus 02:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not a matter of never hearing of a label. It's not an RIAA label. That's what a major label is, even according to the wikipedia article on record label. It's an indy, and the standard on what a "more important" indy label is not at all clear. You still haven't explained how anyone would know from the article (which is the appropriate place for assertions of notability to be) that this band meets #1 or #4. People complain about my use of editorial templates because they think their pet projects (as this appears to be for you) aren't supposed to operate within project policies and other concepts for which there is broad consensus (like notability). That does not make anything "true". Given that, I will once again thank you to not characterize my contributions to this project as "misuse". Erechtheus 02:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
On another note, I'd suggest that you read all of criteria #6 when it comes to War (Swedish band). It's what you appear to be hanging your hat on when you write "article clearly claims notability". While we could go back and forth on whether or not an article about what is apparently a side project or early band should or shouldn't be given the notability template, the notability criteria is pretty clear in its strong suggestion that side projects and early bands shouldn't have articles -- they should have redirects. Erechtheus 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide any sort of citation establishing that Nuclear Blast is a major label in a sense meant by those who drafted the music notability standard? It's very obvious what is meant by major label, particularly because they contrast it with an independent label. If you can't, perhaps you should reconsider the relative levels of meta-wiki knowledge at play here. I strongly resent your opinion of my contribution to this project, and I think I have made that clear on more than one occasion in this conversation. Instead of backing off, you have chosen to continue your attack. I guess I can't really do much about that other than pointing it out. I can once again suggest to you that expecting editors to do Google searches is not at all what notability is about. If a band qualifies as notable because they have toured extensively, it should spell that out in the article. It's the sort of thing the reader would want to know about. The same goes for having appropriate reliable sources outside of the band's own website or promotional material. I'm suggesting that this sort of music is among your pet projects. There is nothing wrong with having pet projects. Trust me -- I have them as well. The problem comes in if you think it's appropriate to attack other editors acting in good faith because they dare question why something you care about is notable. Consider that, please. As to your last query, I'd suggest a redirect to the bio of the person listed as still being in War would be the appropriate redirect if War isn't notable except for being a band he participates in. If there are good independent sources for the band that can be added to the article, I see no reason why they wouldn't be considered notable. Again, I'm fine with taking your word for it. I'd just like to hope you can see my side of all of this. Erechtheus 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to put a bow on this, looking back at it a day later, I'd like to say to you that I accept your explanation that you were not attempting to attack me in our exchange. I think we're at the place we need to be with this -- we have identified ways in which the articles we talked about could definitely be improved. If you want to make those improvements, you can do so. That certainly isn't your obligation, though. At the same time, I think we have clearly gone over how the articles are notable. I'd like to close by wishing you happy editing. Erechtheus 23:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Audio engineering

Good move on removing the non-notables. I had suggested it be done, but rcvd some resistance. --Epeefleche 04:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Club Sandwich

Hey man. You deleted the album art for Billy Club Sandwich's Hold the Bologna 7". I'm guessing that whoever uploaded it didn't bother with any sort of fair use rationale, I just want to make sure that there wasn't anything further than that involved before I re-upload the image with a rationale. I'm fairly certain that would be it though, as both the label who put that out and the band are the last people in the world who would care. That page is an eventual project of mine, as the whole article is accurate, but unfortunatly it will be difficult to locate citations online with that sort of band. Thanks man, Mbruno42 18:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's what I meant, suppose I could have worded it a little better. Thanks for the link though. Mbruno42 04:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gabriels Fallen Photo Use

read this http://www.gabrielsfallen.com/wikipedia.cfm/ straight from the horse's mouth.

[edit] Suburban Noize Records Compilation Albums

I noticed that Erechtheus gave you a notability tag and had discussion on Hypocrisy. Well I have recently created numerous pages for every Suburban Noize Records compilation albums and for some reason he can't help but to place a tag on I believe every single album. After small discussion the notability tags have been removed, but now that I have created two more of the albums which are direct from the Subnoize Souljaz, he happened to place more. The reason I come to you is because I'm not positive if I am in the wrong here and was hoping you may possibly help me to see what I might be doing wrong if in fact he is right. Here is the link to the full list of compilation albums; SubNoize. I'd really appreciate the help if you don't mind. Thank you. Tris31erlover 22:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Well, that is all I can really say. I appreciate the help. --Tris31erlover 10:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image for Slint's Self Titled EP

Hi, you and I had a brief discussion about the fair use rationale for an image that I did not upload. I was given notice that an image that I did add needs a proper rationale added (not so) recently, I just got around to trying to do it today. I figured you would be a good person to check with and see if my rationale is acceptable or not, and if the latter, what I did wrong. The image in question is Image:Slint self titled EP.jpg. Thanks a lot man - Mbruno42 18:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ?

Why was your list of melodic death metal bands deleted? I think that list should be kept!Navnløs 18:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Nintendocore

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nintendocore, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendocore. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Flaw logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Flaw logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Inflameslogo1997.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Inflameslogo1997.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Inflameslogo2002.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Inflameslogo2002.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Inflameslogo1994.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Inflameslogo1994.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)