Talk:Weapon (band)

NPOV

The language in this article,a nd one paragraph in particular, implies that the author has a personal vendetta against one or more members of the band (e.g. calling him "the biggest pice of shit" ever in the Edmonton music scene). This needs to be removed in order for the page to be useful on any level. A lizard (talk) 21:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Weapon band.jpg Deleted

An image used in this article, File:Weapon band.jpg, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Adrignola for the following reason: No OTRS permission received

What should I do?

You can remove the code for this image from the article text (which can look messy), however a different bot may already have done so. You could also try to search for new images to replace the one deleted. If you think the deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons.

This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Implied ownership

It looks like user A Sniper (talk · contribs) is the owner of this article. Every attempt to edit it has been deleted and considered incorrect, so I presume he is Eric Greif and has a conflict of interest with the topic. Of course the tag I've added will be removed, but at least I left a statement.--Malconfort (talk) 00:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is ridiculous and you are not exercising good faith. I suggest you make a formal complaint or get an admin because your accusation has no merit. All I did was revert your edits on a) WEAPON's lawyer (with bona fide, secondary source reference) and b) WEAPON's subgenre (with bona fide, secondary source reference). It is you doing the purging. Whether or not I know the band or have no clue who they are, the point about Wikipedia is to follow the rules and to use secondary sources. I suggest you use refs and don't get bent out of shape over other editors reverting your work. I shall now remove your notice as it has absolutely no merit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 01:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

To put it simple; if my complaints has no merits, what is your goal in editing this article?--Malconfort (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

To get relevant information, that can be verified by secondary sources (and is not POV), out there for people to read. What was your point in getting rid of the band's category as 'blackened death metal'? Isn't that a POV edit, considering it goes against the information that is out there about the band. Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed 'blackened death metal' because it is a term invented by the media to make artists increase their sales, since they are under a different categorization than most [supposed to be common] death or black metal bands. Of course, for you as an editor and reader the edit I made looks strange, but if I improve the sources and reword the article you will understand what I'm talking about. I assume that most of these genre wars occurs due to the laziness of the editors involved.--Malconfort (talk) 21:38, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you considering this a genre war? Your speech about 'blackened death metal' is your POV - your opinion. However, there are an adequate number of references to support categorizing Weapon as 'blackened death metal', so that is how it shall stand. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't. But what you are calling as references are far from being reliable. News articles being used as sources for controversial music genres? Maintaining a statement using a poor-quality reference as source isn't far from being a neutral point of view violation.--Malconfort (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't have to lecture to me. There is a solid inclusion of Blackened death metal within the Death metal article (that I have been assisting on for years, by the way), unlike 'brutal death metal' that gets purged by users every instance that someone adds it. Have you seen how many bands are included in the blackened death metal category...but you're saying it does not exist. Your POV on the subject is your own hypothesis. By the way: the specific term 'blackened death metal' even passes the so-called 'Google Test' at 1,350,000 results. Now, let's quit the bickering and work on the article. Best, A Sniper (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Will you help me expanding the article? There is a page on Weapon's website full of interviews and with some reliable sources for reviews as well. Your speech gave me an idea; instead of remove the term blackened death metal I can explain why the media use it to categorise the band and what it represents in their musical style, etc.--Malconfort (talk) 16:33, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course! I have no problem with your last edit - in fact, without a 'blackened death metal' article at this point, isolating both genres (with wikilinks) is clever. However, make sure you don't drift into original research. OK - we've gotten through any negativity and we can now start a new thread! Best, A Sniper (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)