User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Apocalyptica

Inquisiton Symphony is mostly made up of Covers while Cult is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.63.150 (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It has covers on it though. We can't say "This album is mostly made up of covers, where the last one wasn't, as it only had two," because then we'd have to start drawing lines as to where they become "mostly cover albums." ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP!!!!!!!!!!

NOW ENOGH I QUIT YOU DO NOT, WILL NOT, AND CAN NOT UNDERSTAND LEAVE NOW I NEVER WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN

Hail Satan 14:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

... But, I did stop, after you resigned your argument. Hell, I won't reply on your talk page though, as it'd count as feeding the trolls. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Signature

Im just wondering on how you made such a cool signature. If you dont feel like answering then thats fine, im just wondering on how i can make a cool signature. thanks --Metal to the Max! 13:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, I'd be happy to help. First off, go into your "my preferences" section, and make sure the "raw signiture" box is ticked. Then, but whatever Wiki coding you like into there. For example, if you wanted to make it all small, just put '<small>Metal to the Max!</small> in there, and your sig would come out small. It's basically the same as just normal Wiki coding. I usually make my sigs in my sandbox before I actually put it in the preferences, so just mess around a bit first until you decide on what you like. If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, but im not to familier with the wiki coding, if possible could you tell me where i can figure wiki coding out? --Metal to the Max! Born into Attitude!! 04:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal to the Max! (talk • contribs)

Hey, sorry for the slow response, havn't had the internet all week. A load of basic Wiki-coding can be found at WP:CHEAT. Hope that helps :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate, big help --Metal to the Max! 00:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metal to the Max! (talk • contribs)

ok sorry to be a bother, but as u can see from above the sinebot has been on my back about my signature, how do i put a link on it?--[[ Metal to the Max! ]] 09:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I dunno' if you've figured it out yet, but in case you havn't, add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your talk page comments, and your sig will automatically show up. To link to you user page, you should have something along the lines of: [[User:Metal to the Max|<font color="#FF0000"><big>Metal</big><small> to the</small><big> Max!</big></font>]]. And don't worry, you're not bothering me ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the star

Thanks a bunch for the Barnstar.Swirlex 22:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Harassment Panda (South Park) AfD

Thank you for your advice on this AfD. Ultimately I learned alot about the process, however, I have to be a bit honest, i'm a bit disappointed in myself. It seems that I misunderstood WP:EPISODE and in turn made myself look like (excuse the french) but a dumbass.Oh well.

Learn not for the sake of simply having knowledge, learn for the sake of furthering your understanding of what it means to know - Anonymous

--Amaraiel 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it mate, we all make mistakes from time to time, and hell, I've made plenty on Wikipedia, including misunderstanding rules and such. Believe me, you don't look like a dumbass in the slightest, there's been many stupid things I've done on this site, so I wouldn't worry about it. If you don't make a mistake, you don't make anything :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi just a quick note from a wiki user

Hi i often use wikipedia for info on various stuff...if i decide to attain a greater appreciation for any given topic i will copy the text from the page and paste it into word so that i can print it off and read it in my own time.

I have yet to edit, amend or change any content, yet i received this from you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.33.147.119&redirect=no

i have no clue what you are referring to...

please advise,

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.147.119 (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it's more than likely that someone else is using your IP address. If your computer is used by other people, then they may have made such an edit, if not, it's possible that you're using a shared IP; as in it's an IP used by other people on a network. As I believe you didn't make the edits (your contributions can be found here, click (diff) to see what edit was made) then it's best you just ignore the warning I gave you. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me...its weird because i am the only one using this MAC and im on my home network which is secure using PSK...i would be grateful if there are any more changes made to the wiki under the IP my MAC has for you to message me...so i can figure out if someone is wardriving my network.

regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.147.119 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm being honest, I don't entirely know the extent of IP's and how they can be shared - so I'm at a bit of a dead end here. However, if there are any edits of vandalism that I notice coming from your IP, I will let you know. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steal?

Hallo Meine Tochter,

It is steal? :D

Just have a look here. You can check the history (geçmiş) out

I made this userbox by myself. Anyway...

Take care of yourself

Auf Wiederschreiben

Teşekkürler, iyi çalışmalar. XD kızılsungur 06:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

... Meine Tochter? Doesn't that mean my daughter!? Lol, well I did use the Rammstein one that you made - hope you don't mind! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Ich weisse es nicht Deutsch. I've forgotten. Sorry :) I meant "my sister" :D Whatever...

Take care of yourself

kızılsungur 02:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 42 15 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Brion Vibber interview
Wikimania 2008 awarded to Alexandria Board meeting held, budget approved
Wikimedia Commons reaches two million media files San Francisco job openings published
Community sanction noticeboard closed Bot is approved to delete redirects
License edits under consideration to accommodate Wikipedia WikiWorld comic: "Soramimi Kashi"
News and notes: Historian dies, Wiki Wednesdays, milestones Wikimedia in the News
WikiProject Report: Military history Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 10:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please change your Signature

Hi, sorry if that may seem unfriendly, but could you please remove the image from signature? Please see Wikipedia:Signatures, where it is explained why images there is a terrible idea, especially for accessibility purposes (and a lot of other good reasons). Thanks for your help :). -- lucasbfr talk 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Woops, didn't realise that images were discourged in sigs! I saw a few other people with images in them, but it looks like they no longer use them - the sig's fixed :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 21:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden page

I enjoyed looking for that, Ctrl+F was helpful, though you didn't make it easy. It seems I inadvertently led at least 1 person to it without them searching. [1] Sorry about that, and thanks for the barnstar! KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hehe I saw his reply, and realised I didn't count on people finding it like that! Hehe, well congrats on finding it! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

My Story is basically the same, I know Angel Of Sadness and I saw you give her a barnstar which thus made me want to find your secret page. I will admit I did look and I was pretty sure it had something to do with music or movies the only way I found it was by some other sneaky wikipedian means. AKA History of edits etc etc. --Diaboli 00:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thought it might be something along those lines :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More Crap

I appreciate your labeling my edit on More Crap about the NRA as "good faith," since it was in good faith. I love South Park and prefer that their articles aren't sabotaged. =)

However, I'm having some gripes with the deletion of that point in references. The case that people have is that the point about Giuliani is speculation. However, it wouldn't be the first time that something was speculated upon in the South Park episodes. For example, you can look in Season 11 for the Easter special and notice speculation about Donahue's dialogue about the Jews. South Park, as we all know, is a pop culture haven, and considering the humor of Giuliani's actions and how recent the event was, I see nothing wrong with adding that point as pop culture. And I'd appreciate a good reason as to why it is somehow less useful than any other speculation about South Park episodes before I stop reinserting what I feel is a legitimate theory.

I look forward to the response. - Frightwolf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frightwolf (talk • contribs) 23:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not being bias - I wish I could remove pop-culture on the other SP episodes, but they are just inside of the rules. If you think that your edit was relevant enough, then by all means add it back in, and I'll leave it as such - I'm just doing my best to keep as much OR and the like out :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Damn, quick response!
I find the pop culture references to be a lot of fun. There are some references which I didn't get, and I like to go onto the episode descriptions and read about what I may have missed. There have been some people that have deleted the 'trivia' and pop culture completely, and I never understood why. Maybe you can tell me why you don't like a Pop Culture section and help me learn some of the people's gripes about it. =P
A side-note -- as a South Park fan, the one thing I fear is how well the episodes will age when so much pop culture is in it. Like in the parody of 24, say Askjeeves is long-gone by then (I'm not even sure if it's still around since I don't use it =P), how many people will get the, "Nobody uses Askjeeves anymore," reference? I hope episodes like Make Love Not Warcraft and the like age gracefully, but I have to wonder if the South Park episodes made so far will have the same flare 10 years from now that the old Simpsons episodes do. - Frightwolf —Preceding comment was added at 23:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
The main problem I, as well as many other Wikipedians have with it, is that it's not encyclopedic. You have to remember that this is an encyclopedia, and not a collection of random trivia facts. I recently removed all the goofs from every episode, as, although some might find them interesting, they are nonetheless not relevant to an encyclopedia. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden Page

Which one of them is it? YДмΔќʃʀï→ГC← 10-21-2007 • 21:39:47

You cheat! :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Coheed and Cambria

I added you as a editor who "may be able to help with questions about verification and sources" for Coheed and Cambria [2]. I hope you don't mind, feel free to remove yourself, but as one of the main editors of the Coheed articles, I felt you fit this well. I am hoping it will improve the article in the future. Thanks, — jacĸrм (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright man, that's cool, no problem at all, thanks ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed

I also reviewed you. :) — jacĸrм (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I've started to participate in AfD's a lil', but I still need to take a more active role in them. Thanks again! :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 18:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFA nom

I'd like to nominate you for administratorship. Please let me know if you are interested. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Goodness! Heh, I did not see that one coming! Well, sure, and thank you very much! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Word! You certainly have my support. Let me know when it's up :) — jacĸrм (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yey! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks like this one is going to be alot more successful, currently you have 4 support and 0 oppose or neutral. Good luck! — jacĸrм (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope it goes well! Thanks ^_^ :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 08:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] nomination

Swatjester would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Swatjester to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Haunted Angel 2. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.

[edit] RE: Hello, Zepp

Thanks for the award. I really appreciate it. So from a Saw fan to another, have you seen Saw IV? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:27, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not yet. It pained me greatly to have to go into work today, when I could be watching it - so I'm watching it tomorrow instead. Possibly twice :P Have you seen it? If you have, please do not reveal any information about it! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I just came back from seeing it. (Don't worry I won't spoil it for you). All I'll say, is go see it. I hope you become an Administrator. I'd be cool to have someone to protect Saw related articles. But, I hope you get it. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 00:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! And yeah, I'll be sure to watch it tomorrow... possibly more than once :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:39, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my autograph book. I really appreciate it. You're welcome on your Rfa. So did you watch Saw? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I have! I'll tell you know, the ending made my brain stop working for a few minutes - although based on Hoffman's actions in Saw III, the twist with him wasn't much of a surprise to me. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I know. He did look a little suspicious in Saw III. At first I thought Art was the one who was going to continue Jigsaw's work, but, there's always that twist. Question: In Saw II it was revealed that Amanda was going to continue with Jigsaw's work, but in Saw III she dies. My question is, since she has a page of her own, would it be sufficient to create one on Hoffman? --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 22:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
With the revalations in Saw IV, I think it would be quite sufficient to, yes. I was also surprised that Rigg didn't have his own. When I have more time (my internet is unavailable during the week, unfortunatly) I will get onto the latter if it hasn't already been done. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, cool. Yeah, cause I was going to bring it up in the Saw IV talk page, but then I realized that some people may not have seen the film, so I just left it. If you'd like, I'll help (when your free). --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 23:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, you can get started whenever you like - most of my editing dedications at the moment are waiting for my week-day internet to get fixed, so it's a lil' hit and miss at the moment. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:20, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 43 22 October 2007 About the Signpost
Fundraiser opens, budget released Biographies of living people grow into "status symbol"
WikiWorld comic: "George Stroumboulopoulos" News and notes: Wikipedian Robert Braunwart dies
WikiProject Report: League of Copyeditors Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Saw October Newsletter


The WikiProject Saw Newsletter
Issue II - October 2007
Member news
  • The project has currently 19 members.
From the Members

Welcome to the second issue of the WikiProject Saw's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.

It's now "Saw Weekend" and Saw IV has been out for a couple of days now. (If you haven't seen it, don't worry, I won't spoil anything for you.) Because of this, a lot of the articles are probably going to need a bit of work. I'll go into more detail on other various sections. All in all, a lot of the 'challenges' from last month's newsletter are still here. Since the release of IV will probably be the last major release of info at least until next year's V we could probably just try to improve the information we already have.

We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. CyberGhostface 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Pages Needing Cleanup
  • List of traps in the Saw film series: This survived deletion, but it was recommended that we change the article a bit.
  • Detective Eric Matthews: This article could use a bit of clean-up to make it less in-universe. Since he's one of the few recurring characters outside of Jigsaw and Amanda, we could probably base it off off their formats.
Current Debates
Monthly Collaboration
  • Last month's monthly collaboration was Saw (film). As a guide, look at other featured horror film articles such as Halloween (1978 film) and Night of the Living Dead. More external information (such as behind the scenes, reception, etc) should be added if possible. A new one hasn't been decided yet. My suggestion would be to either work some more on Saw's article, or perhaps start a new collaboration.
Newsletter Challange
  • Try to make the character articles more encyclopedic by making them less in-universe. See Jigsaw and Amanda's articles for guidance. Also see Jason Voorhees, which is a featured article. (Obviously there is more information on Jason available than the Saw characters, but it is worth looking at to see what's considered the best of the best.)
  • Some of the plot articles seem to be overtly long. Without bowdlerizing them, maybe we could try to make them a bit shorter and concise.
  • Try to invite more members to this project. If you know any Saw fans who are good with computers, invite them to Wikipedia. The more the merrier.

--CyberGhostface 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

On finding my secret page. In return, I would love for you to enjoy a smile. Enjoy your day. Zenlax T C S 19:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Zenlax has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Woo ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks:

Thanks for the barnstar! I loved the first Saw movie, but thought the 2nd and 3rd were nowhere near as good, but still great. That twister device from Saw 3 was gruesome though. Let's just hope that they don't butcher the franchise with Saw IV like they did with Jason and Michael... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 23:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC). P.S. I was serious about the code... ;)

Yeah, I think Saw I was the best - but I still love all the others. Hehe, and I loved the code you left :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Lol, I was kidding - Hmm, I wonder which code you could find in a sentence which didn't have one.... :) Cheers, Spawn Man 23:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coheed's genre

As one of the most regular editors there, I thought I'd ask for your opinion, which I also am asking for on the Coheed talk page :p

I don't agree with a review being added to fit Coheed's genre. The band should be what they describe themselves as, which is progressive. If the band say they are progressive, let it be. The best source for a genre is what they say themselves, and have they said anywhere themselves they are emo? A source which is not themselves should only be used to describe a bands genre if no official website of them (such as MySpace) can be found to describe their genre. But in this case, they have described themselves as progressive, and only other people have described them as emo. Opinion? — jacĸrм (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually have started writing a section (which I couldn't finish yesterday) that would explain how some people claim them to be emo (then link the sources), some say that they arn't, and some say they are progressive, or whatever, and under the band table at the top, have it say "Distputed subgenres" with a link to the section. However, there are a few flaws with the emo catagory... first off, the band don't sing about "emotional" themes, as bands in the emo genre do, they sing about The Amory Wars. They don't have an "emotional stage presnce", as the Wikipedia article says emo bands do, and hell, they hardly fit the genre at all, in my opinion. I can't really argue with the sources, but all in all, they are simple opinions - which was why I was writing the genre section later. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some slightly silly swastika suggestions

(okay, it's only one suggestion, and not silly, but I wanted to make an alliterative statement)

How about moving the grammar nazi box to User:The Haunted Angel/Useless Information instead? That'd keep it from being presented front-and-center, which seems to be one of the primary concerns, but would let you still proudly display it. Curiously, I've had it at User:EVula/grammar since well before my RfA (nominated a year ago today) and never had it be an issue. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you should move it :P. It's strange that you say that though, EVula, how it wasn't an issue with you yet one person asks a question, and it gets Haunted 5+ opposes.. — jacĸrм (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about that, and it seems that that may be a good idea. Lol, ironicly, it was your grammar sub page EVula, where I first found the user box :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've actually just decided to go ahead and remove it altogether, to avoid any further trouble. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I personally think you should move the DGAF - box in some similar manner. Greswik 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I strongly disagree; being offended by the nazi swastika is completely different from being offended by the word "fuck". The former has a modicum of rationality to it, while the latter is just the offended person having a thin skin. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Aww, now I feel guilty for somehow bringing your RfA down. Damn. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 44 29 October 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Florence Devouard interview
Page creation for unregistered users likely to be reenabled WikiWorld comic: "Human billboard"
News and notes: Treasurer search, fundraiser, milestones WikiProject Report: Agriculture
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA was unsuccesful

I have closed your RFA. I am afraid there was no consensus to promote you. Please address the concerns that were raised and feel free to reapply in the future. Good luck. --Deskana (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bigots want you to take down your pentagram. Don't do it. The swastika was dumb though. --yoy

Lol, thank you for the advice, but I have no intention to take down the pentagram. The swastika I can at least understand - the pentagram isn't a symbol of hatred. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Some ass was on there saying "this shows total disrespect for religion" or something like that. I'm thinking, what the hell, no it doesn't, you ignorant bigot... but what do I know, I'm an IP. --yoy
The fact that you're an IP is irrelevant - you know as I do that simply having a pentagram displayed doesn't mean I'm gonna' go and incinerate a Church, or something similar. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant to voting in RFA though. Oh well. Sorry about how this turned out. Good luck to you. I'm out. --yoy
Thank you for your support, nonetheless. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 02:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame that you didn't get to be an admin, you'd have made a good one. Maybe in the future, huh? :) — jacĸrм (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm pissed it all went down the way it did. A lot of it was just plain silly. Here's hoping that next time goes better; I think that, since most of the opposes were in regards to that damn userbox, you could make a successful run at it in a couple of months after all this dust clears.. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry dood. Don't change the Pentagram. Satanism as a religion has done far less damage than any other organized religion. Your using the Nazi symbol was indicative that you are a Nazi, ala German Nazis, when it comes to grammar and I'm glad you didn't defend it by going into some bullshit answer on how it was some sacred symbol of yore. I've never interacted with you, but I can tell you that it's going to be tough for you to apologize for something that you found in a userbox, unless you really feel that you were in the wrong. I support you 100%. the_undertow talk 06:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you all for your support and advice - I'm a fair bit dissapointed about the way it went, but as EVula said, trying again in a few months after this has gone down should be good. TBH, I was working towards being a sysop, but didn't expect the RfA to come so early - so I will continue working as I was before - if not harder. Again, thank you all. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 09:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Some of the opposition was very silly, and I am sorry you didn't pass. I am sure you will do so easily next time. Just make sure there's a next time! Neil ☎ 09:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the support! I will do my very best to ensure there is a next time, and that it goes how this one was supposed to! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 12:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Hello. I voted against you on your RfA because of the box. The problem in the end wasn't the box though, it was the fact that you didn't immediately remove it and admit it was silly. If you had done that you'd have passed easily. Instead you chose to argue your case when you were clearly on the losing side and that's what scuppered you because it called your judgement into question. Choose your battles. Just a hint for next time. Nick mallory 13:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand, and will keep this in mind for the future. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You got robbed

What? Why? That sucks. I was really hoping that you'd be Administrator. I'm so sad now. I can't believe it. Well, maybe next time you'll get it. P.S. Hoffman's article is up. Just letting you know. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 02:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I know, I think some of it was just insane, but I intend to try again in a while. Thanks for the heads up for the Hoffman article. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coheed & Cambria logo

Heya. I'm not an admin, and this is not official - just an opinion. I was reading Coheed and Cambria and considering whether I would do the GA review (I'm kinda new, so I'm choosey about what I review so I don't step in something), and as part of checking out the images, noticed that this one is public domain because you recreated it. Ummm, it's still a copyrighted or trademarked logo by them, is it not? Therefore, whether or not you personally created this image file seems immaterial: It still "belongs" to them and cannot be public domain.

Well, as I said, this is not official, just an opinion. I'm not trying to stir the pot, but you are likely to hear more about this when the GA review happens. FWIW. Have a Wiki day! Mmoyer 03:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The point you raise seems valid - I will have to do my best to find a free version of the logo. And as for the GA review, if you feel you have any insight to it, then go for it! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Don't worry about it. You can apply again in a few months. Good luck mate. King Lopez Contribs 09:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, your optimism is appreciated. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Angel

Hello. Its me American Brit. After my long absense. Its been 10 months since my creaul and heartless banning from Wikipedia and I have decided to come back and try and reconcile my repsect and get things back the way they were. I am as fond of you as I always was and wander during my long absense how you are doing? Are you ok? Hows things on Wikipedia since I left? My last attempt to come back was in March and after I abandoned all attempts. So can we try and forget the horrid past? I still maintain my innocence but I wont keep dwelling on it. American Brit the second 18:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hidden page

Ummm... is your hidden page an odvious link to fool all of us stupid idiots trying to find a secret hiding place for your page? Kitty 01:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow... ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Future of WP:40k

Hello. As a member of WP:40K I ask you to share your thoughts and opinions on a matter that I feel will shape the future of the project. Thanks. --Falcorian (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Thanks! I just made a hidden userpage myself! MindstormsKid 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Great stuff, I'll give a go looking for it! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How old am I?

Good Job!
Good job on finding my hidden userpage! MindstormsKid 01:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads Up

He's been in trouble for 3RR before... watch this one closely [3]. ScarianTalk 23:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the heads-up. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
OMG, only because Scarian reported me... I'm no vandal, jeez, I just happen to like line breaks over comma breaks for genres in the muci infobox. Now, please look at the convo on the CoF page to see my explanation of why CoF is dark metal. Navnløs 23:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[4] - Damn it. I should've remembered that was there. Sorry! ScarianTalk 23:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scarian - no worries, Nav - take it to the CoF page. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I TOLD YOU!!! WHAT DON'T YOU GET!? I AM NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THE GENRE!!!! All I'm saying is there is debate about the genre and it lists what people have called it, and I was only adding one. Actually, I didnt even add it! Just the citation!! Although, I do happen to agree that dark metal accuratelt fits the description of CoF and I want their to be a discussion about that as well. Navnløs 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, you were trying to change the genre. However, we cannot say that we think it sounds like dark metal - read the openeing statement. If you can find a reliable source saying it's dark metal, then add it. Their MySpace, I'd say hardly counts - and even if it did, I cannot find the words "dark metal" on their MySpace. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I understand that and no myspace is not a reliable source. No, I was not trying to change the genre, nor have I ever. I wanted a discussion about it, that's all. I'm not the bad guy. Look at the dark metal page, though will you? It accurately describes CoF, a mix of symphonic black metal w/ gothic metal along with other dark music elements. It's not even like I'm a fan of CoF here, I just happen to be an expert on heavy metal, and I know genres. Navnløs 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I once thought exactly as you do - see an ancient edit of mine - still, dicussing anything that isn't about the improvement of the article is off topic, and will be removed. If you wish to discuss a way to improve the article, please read the opening statement - When you post I will know you've read it. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought you said that sentence about dark metal could be left intact in the article if I had a reference!!! That list you put it in is more fan labels than anything. The dark metal reference was more notable because it is what the band and record label are calling CoF right now. It deserves its own sentence at least. Navnløs 19:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No, I said the reference would be acceptable - not the sentance as a whole - as Cardinal said, I'm not gonna' argue here - take it to the Cradle talk page. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CoF discussion (Copied and pasted)

Lol, well I used to like them a lot, but that was when I liked nu metal bands , like Slipknot and Korn, years ago. It's all very immature stuff. Then I found better stuff. There's a lot better black metal bands, believe me. But then again if you're more into the popular metal, w/e. I mean even hair metal had a few good bands and had its moments. CoF s alright, I guess, but my point is that there is better stuff. Second, I'm not gonna be able to find a free image of the band. That's almost impossible. There's a lot of people right now who are deleting band pictures on wikipedia, especially from metal articles. That's because it's impossible to put up an image and have a fair use that fits the guidelines. The few band pictures that are out there now on wikipedia just haven't been caught yet. Death actually had a picture of their band for the longest time, and it got deleted because the fair use was looked at as a lie (it probably was). There are many of these campaigners who are getting rid of band pics on wikipedia. I don't know why, no one is actually gonna sue, but the fact is these campaigners can back up what they do, unfortunately. I wouldn't even try to get a free image...it's just not possible. Navnløs (talk) 00:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Lol, normally I listen to music as heavy as, or heavier than Cradle. Cradle, Slayer, My Dying Bride, Nile, Gorgoroth, Rammstein - these are a select few of my preffered - but I won't stay off-topic. I admit finding free pictures on Wikipedia is a bit of a pain - but that's what it means when we try to find a completely "free" encyclopedia... still, finding band pictures has been difficult here and on my other main source of contributions, Coheed and Cambria. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
WTF, did you purposely try to get a +666? Well, anyways, all those bands you just named are good, except Rammstein (pretty much nu metal) and C&C (urk...emo), but w/e, to each their own. I don't really think we should even need to find free pictures, just find w/e pic off the internet, but I'm sure this would cause legal issues. No one should care, though. I'm pretty sure most of the metal bands here on wikipedia wouldn't care that someone put a "non free" pic of them on this site, in fact they might even encourage it. But of course that is all POV and against Wikipedia rules. Navnløs (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I did notice that, and chuckled to myself afterwards :P And Rammstein, nu metal!? You have a funny sense of what nu metal is, my friend... either way, I won't argue bands with you, you appear to be more "kvlt" then me! :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I never claim to be more kvlt than anyone, though I do know more than most about metal and black metal, especially, but I don't look at that as a boast, it just happens that I'm interested in that stuff, that's all. And no, Rammstein is not technically nu metal, but they have certainly been an influence on some bands of that genre and have at times incorporated elements of the genre into their music. They are Neue Deutsche Härte. I mmuch prefer the band that inspired Rammstein, though, which is OOMPH!, they also happen to be Neue Deutsche Härte. Of course I know what Rammstein is, though. I love history and especially german history is interesting, and I happen to be able to speak German, though not fluently or perfectly at all. I'm learning. Navnløs (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Heh, it appears you and I have many things in common - I'd like to apologize, by the way, if I came off a little harsh during the discussion as to whether "dark metal" should be added. Consider this a "start-over" to working with you. Sorry, I tried to make it sound as less queer as possible... ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate that. I look forward to working with you in the future. I admit that I am quite opinionated (I am also open minded, too, though) and when I latch on to an issue, sometimes its hard for me to let go. Navnløs (talk) 01:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm just the same - I looked over you User Page, and it seems we have a lot in common :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff. Navnløs (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whitelisting

One of the advantages of not knowing policies is that you can make up your own:) For me you are "an established trusted user with a legitimate reason for requiring the link" as such it's whitelisted - give it a try, it should work. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot mate :) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it works, thanks for the assistance! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Motto

Thanks for supporting my motto. Also, im a Christian, so I will Never say that Jimmy Wales is God sice he is not. God is God HIYO (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I gathered you might be - you have to see though that you don't have to be serious in this - if you want to worship a God that's fine, just keep in mind the daily motto thing is just a little bit of fun - I'm sure your God won't hate you for it ^_~ I was, after all, trying to get the Bible quote accurate. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't worry, I know the motto is wikifun. Its OK, I was just saying. HIYO (talk) 01:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Out of curiosity

How do you make your signature all wierd the way you do? For example, you have a link to your user talk next to your name that appears as a COF album name...how'd you do that? Navnløs (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I take it you refer to my older sig, with (The Forest Whispers My Name) in it? Well, first off you go to "my preferences" at the top. There you can find what sig you want - make sure the "raw signature" box is ticked. Write your sig in there like it were normal wiki coding. For example, my current sig has the following coding: ≈ [[User: The Haunted Angel|<b><font color="#8000FF">The Haunted Angel</font></b>]] <small><u>[[Wikipedia:Editor review/The Haunted Angel 2|Review Me!]]</u></small>. Alter it as you would for whatever you want the sig to be - experiment on the sandbox or something. For the Cradle sig, I would have had something along the lines of [[User:The Haunted Angel|The Haunted Angel]] <sup>([[User talk:The Haunted Angel|The Forest Whispers My Name]]. Once you've saved it, typing ~~~~ will make whatever sig you've saved to appear. Hope that helps, dude! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your help, thanks, man. Navnløs (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Not a problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Test Your Might

Test Your Might, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Test Your Might satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test Your Might and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Test Your Might during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgoroth

Heya, thanks for spotting that other unsourced bit about criminal convictions and removing it. Don't know how I missed it! --Stormie (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem; but I'll be re-adding most of it soon - I know it happened, I just need to find a reliable source first and see how much of it is true! :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I did some Googling and actually didn't have much luck finding a news report on the case. Plenty of unreliable sources talking about (so indeed, I'm sure it's correct), but it seems that the reliable sources might all be in the Norwegian media. We need a native Norwegian speaker to help out I think. :-) --Stormie 04:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Hehe, indeed. I'll keep looking for a good source though =D ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 12:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yo

Don't worry about warning the Metal to the Max user. That user has already been warned a few times. In other news perhaps you can help me with something. On the Amon Amarth page User:Twsx has continued edit warring though he has been warned multiple times by users (he just deletes the warnings off his talk pages). Maybe you can give him another warning as he has persisted or do something about it, cuz I gotta run, though I may be back. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem mate, I'll take a look at the users page and warn him if he continues to remove the templates - eventually he'll get banned :P ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Removing warnings (Preferably archiving them) is a perfectly acceptable way of acknowledging the warning, Navnlos. ScarianTalk 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I see archiving them as acceptable - but removing them altogether, although I realise isn't against any rules (I don't think), I am against. This is primarially because as user is banned after so many warnings, and if an admin were to see no warnings there, when he's already received a final warning, he could get away with a level 1 warning again. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I don't think there is a guideline. Although an admin checks the edit history of a user before a block just in case :-) Anyway, I probably should've put this section on Navnlos' talk page. Silly me. Hopefully he'll stumble upon it either way. ScarianTalk 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
On the plus side, however, there are some admins (like me!) that look at the vandalism itself, rather than the number or level of warnings. I've indefinitely blocked editors after two edits and no warnings before. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Which, ironically, is how I give warnings :-) ScarianTalk 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll allow myself to answer here, as this discussion sort of is about me: I do not remove proper warnings from my talk page. If you look at it, you will be able to find a number of things that put me in a bad light; I do not make a point in hiding anything. What I did remove (twice, if i recall correctly) was baseless gibberish by Navnløs, accusing me of breaking policies while i didn't, and personal attacks or other incivil things. Navnløs has a thing for those kind of comments, looking through only one or two pages of his contribution history will give you enough of an overview of what I deal with. The user seems to be here on crusade to enforce his very own opinion, not only about actually silly stuff like formatting (which is the grudge he has with me), but also disputes in terms of content, which he rigorously puts through without any regard of what the community consensus on the matter is. It is not my goal nor my wish to have you, Haunted Angel, pushed towards any side here, but I felt since Navnløs literally asked you to "investigate" me, I should have a word. Thank you. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 23:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it seems that I have been told one side of a story, although I do not wish to get involved in what's going on here. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is about, or how deep it goes, but rather than side with one person, I'll retract any involvement I've shown here, as it seems that my involvement will only cause more trouble. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Understandable. I hope I didn't bother you too much by interfering, but as said, I felt i had the proper right to. ~ | twsx | talkcont | 00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course not - I'd do the same if I were in your posistion. The way I took it, there was no doubt as to who was edit warring, but as I said, I think I'll stay out of this and take a neutral stance. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nude picture for ratm,disturbing pic of ozzy eating bat head on his page :p

Only fair,and why not put in a picture of paris hiltons sex tape? And other goodies?72.23.119.35 (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Because whereas the Hilton Sex Tape is porn, the nude Rage pic is not. We don't need to show the Sex Tape on the encyclopedia - we know it exists, and if someone really wants to see it, they can find it. The Rage pic however, is encyclopedic. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry...

I was not trying to vandalize i was tryings to make the "saw V" link go to "Saw V" and i fucked up sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJLESDUDE (talk • contribs) 10:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, sorry if I came off a little harsh. What you should do though, is use the "show preview" button when you are about to submit something to see if it comes out right. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Coheed page

Hey thanks, I definitely will add my name to the list. I have always been a Coheed fan, and I was reading their article and saw that it was rather sloppy. Hence, I decided I could definitely help fix that. Thanks for the info. --Wick3dd (talk) 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have you aboard ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Apologize

I am very sorry that i vandalize because i was just need to edit some stuff and put it a normal way instead of bringing some new message i know i vandalized by acciedent because i didn't meant to do that. So can you please stop giving me some new message Please because i just need to edit something and then i am DONE!!!!

Okay thanks for your cooperation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.227.100.235 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claudio Sanchez

What methodology should I employ to verify/source/document the presence of a female backup singer on stage as of December 2007?

Eric Urban (talk) 04:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the use of a female singer is hardly notable - but I believe you added it claiming that Claudio's voice was failing him, or something along the lines. Mentioning this would clasify as original research anyway, so I wouldn't even expend the effort to add it in. Sorry if I've taken a dump on your edits, but at least you're being bold! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I see the basis for it violating Wikipedia's policies, but I do not agree it is hardly notable. A singer who is well known for his wide vocal range coming on stage and failing to perform even with backup singers is kind of a discussion point. He was either opting not to sing alot of verses and select syllables from others, or couldn't. I will point out that through my own Original Research he was not doing this when they performed @ VooDoo Fest in New Orleans nor were the two female singers visibly presnt onstage when they performed at The Sugar Mill in NOLA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Urban (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The same really could be said about Dani Filth. He his noted for his wide vocal range, yet many people say that his voice is failing him - yet unless there was some definate reliable source proving this point, it'd most probably fall under the defiance of WP:NPOV. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 11:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Mortal Kombat 2.....

I have sources, but why is the hacks irrelevant? Is Ultimate Mortal Kombat Trilogy irrelevant? Sorry, but, it could be alright if I undo your edit and add references? If you have an explanation, I would understand. --Dekabreak101 (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

My main concern was the sources - re-add them if you want, I just didn't really think hacks for a game were relevant - by Ultimate Mortal Kombat Trilogy, I take it you mean Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3? That wouldn't be irrelevant, due to the fact it's an official release. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 00:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The Haunted Angel i know the mark well enough, if u know as much as i do then mail me at aj_antonio13@hotmail.com.. and i will show u alot more, then what meets the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.13.190 (talk) 14:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

... Pardon? ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism???

Hello, please do not label my edits as "vandalism" when they are obviously made in "good-faith", and especially if they are true and factual. I re-added Travis' nickname as "Cleveland Stever" and added a reference. Don't edit it. --bambros25

Hey - when you first added the band, you had no source, and I had no way of knowing that they were true and factual - and considering what the name of the band was, I assumed it was vandalism. Although I apologize for the misunderstanding, perhaps instead of telling me to assume good faith, you should assume good faith in why I removed it to begin with. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 20:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely would have assumed you acted in "good faith" if (1) you didn't jump to the faulty conclusion that it was "vandalism" or if (2)my edit sounded ridiculous, but since neither happened, I couldn't assume anything. Glad the misunderstanding is settled however. --bambros25 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.224.40 (talk) 00:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgoroth

Well, I was told by Infernus PERSONALLY that they made it look like a court gave them the rights to the name, but as you can read in the history, it is not a final decision. The name STILL belongs to Infernus. Regain Records wouldn't have sided with him if he didn't own the name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas666bolen (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not you were told "personally" is irrelevant. The point is that the patent office has ruled in favour of Gaahl and King. Regain Records may have sided with him, but the law is with Gaahl. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats bullshit. They want you to think the patent office made the final decision, but it was a buearocrat jumping the gun before the dicision is finalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas666bolen (talk • contribs) 22:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's tough whether or not you consider it to be "bull shit". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, based on acurrate sources, not a place to spread rumour and heresay, which I would call bull shit. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

but you see, this is not rumors or heresay, this is from the mouth of Infernus. Gaahl and King, completely obviously, tried to gain the rights BEFORE they tried to fire him, and failed. Now they are spreading propaganda to get everyone on their side. I am stating FACTS, no more, no less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas666bolen (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no evidence to support these so called "facts", and so it must be written off as unsourced and potentially untrue. See WP:CITE. And again, please sign your posts. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

how do I sign it like that

By typing "~~~~" after your message. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 22:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

my keyboard doesn't have that keyDallas666bolen (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)but i just noticed that its available below the message boxDallas666bolen (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

then Ill create a new account and continue correcting the errors. The truth will not be silenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dallas666bolen (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

true, but I have lots of friends with computers, so once again, the truth shall not be silenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Virfirnus (talk • contribs) 00:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a legal case over this band's rightful owners right now. This should be noted in the page. You are attempting to silence the fact that Infernus is the one who holds the copyright of the name Gorgoroth. The 2nd division of the patent office in Norway overturned the 1st division's ruling upon appeal. It is fair that you want to keep the page as accurate as possible, it is NOT fair that you completely remove anything that does not go along with the Gaahl/King version of the band. Talk to Infernus, he will respond to what you have to say/ask. Then you will get the amount of 'proof' needed for the updates that I, along with others, have made and you reverted.

I'm not trying to "silence" anything - what it boils down to quite simply is that reliable sources are required to back up anything such as your claims. You may say it's true, but there's no proof to the average reader that it is. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

sory to interrupt but may I ask dallas666bolen what evidence he has to back up his claim that the 1st office's decision has been overturned by the 2nd? infernus has stated that he will soon begin the process of appealing it on his website (gorgorth.info) but I cannot find anything to say he has won the appeal. Gpmuscillo (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've seen the evidence that he has posted up before, and the only link is Infernus' own site, which isn't a reliable source, as it is complete POV. Gaahl's site states the exact opposite to Infernus', and so there is a conflict - but as the authorities have voted in favour of Gaahl, that makes Infernus' site incorrect, and Gaahl's correct. Anything else he wishes to add is unsourced or hasn't got an accurate source. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANI

Re "Problem with Gorgoroth editor" can you file an SSP and provide diffs, more detail, etc? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
See comment I left at ANI too. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gorgoroth

The Gorgoroth name dispute is still not resolved. The Norwegian Patent Office still lists King's application as "Under behandling", which just means that it's been received and is being handled. Here's a link:

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200710859&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

Also, if you go here: https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Default.aspx

...and tick the box "Varemerke" (i.e. Trademark) and type "Gorgoroth" in the search field, you will see that King and Gaahl have also applied for a trademark on the name "The Force Gorgoroth":

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200715621&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

https://dbsearch.patentstyret.no/Vis_patent.aspx?idappl=200715620&domene=V&version=1&tyapplication=

Bulgakoff (talk) 07:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arntor.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Arntor.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Galaxy in flames.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Galaxy in flames.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist, the Movie

I'll be at the talk page. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)