User:Wiki libs/talkarchive

Reverting Vision (Band)?

Can you please put my Vision (band) article back. you deleted it for no reason and my band needs it and it neds to be reverted as soon as posible.

Hello

Hey, Libs (not sure if you're the 156 user or what). I'm going to have to ask you to please revert yourself on the metalhead page and I would appreciate if you struck out your warning on my page. Please read the metalhead talk page for further info. My edits weree per WP:V and WP:OR. Pure policy. I'd revert you myself, but I don't want to break 3RR. The other user on there who has been reverting me refuses to read WP:V and keeps violating it and needs to be reported. Information must be verified Libs and sourced. Thanks. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Your fix is to delete the entire article. The other users argument is to fix what is there. Fixing what is there is the "Wikipedia way". Blanking content is vandalism. Best that you learn the difference now. Libs (talk) 22:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What you are saying blatantly breaks WP:V and goes directly against it. You are breaking wikipedia policy. Information must be verified through reliable sources. If you don't like it consider not using wikipedia. And no, I was not put on WP:1RR. An admin that I am on friendly terms with said that I might consider following WP1RR to prevent myself from being blocked in the future. I was never put on WP:1RR, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Libsey!

I've been meaning to reply to you! Sure, fire away the report, although, you've got 15 minutes in which to do it 'cause then I'm toddling off to bed! I hope you had a great trip and, sure! An ale sometime sounds great! Coming back over again in the summer? And, of course, an FA or two will do great for the project ;-) So, yeah, just submit the report on 3RRN (I'm the main admin there anyways, I even wrote a guide for it!) and I'll have a look! See you Libsey. Great to hear from you! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

u r 2

Despite me being incorrect about dates and spacing, you are even more of a dumbass by reverting ENTIRE edits with OBVIOUSLY BETTER material, such as grammar, opening sentences, links to pages, and weasel words. You often bring it back to the original, worse state, even if it doesn't involve the infobox stuff. You also completely ignore consistancy, by not doing and entire set and releasing that the edit made the article more consistant with the others (i.e. "is sludge metal band x's seventh studio album" as opposed to "is an album by x". While you're at it, stop fucking around by only reverting the small necessary things as opposed to blindly messing up consistancy and other good tidy-ups.

Besides, WP:ALBUM isn't official, just a project to help manage things. What's especially bullshit is their spacing and capitalization on genres. Gonna start a section about that there. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 01:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil. Enigma ^message 05:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Johan

Looks like things should be ok now, given east's block. Regards, Enigma ^message 05:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL?

“ he is a blacklisted editor who will never be seen as anything other than a troll and a useless contributor to Wikipedia ”

“ Now his contributions here are all pretty much reverted whether they are valid or not because editors have no respect for him and admins can't stand him at all. Be careful not to crawl under his bridge. He already has plenty of company there. ”

These are your quotes. No disagreement about that. I know I may deserve some of them, expecially in the past, but still. You were always pretty incivil with me. Though, as I said, I was also different in the past, though i still don't think I ever warranted most of the insutls you threw my way. They really need to stop now. First off, I don't know anyone who views me as a troll or useless contributor, except you. I make plenty of edits around wikipedia (though less and less lately) and am rarely reverted. Admins can't stand me? I've always been extra civil with them as far as I remember, and I don't remember any admin getting pissed at me or seemingly not being able to stand me. I am not a troll. I never was. YES, I messed up in the past and had my share of indiscretions. But I was never anything like a troll, going around vandalizing shit or working to destroy wikipedia. I might have been misguided in my first efforts, but never a troll. Anyways, I don't really want to discuss this or anything else with you. Just stop insulting me and being incivil about it. State facts it you must. I was blocked a number of times, I have edit warred, etc. You figure it out, but the incivility stops now. You have looked down on me in the past for some of the same things you are doing now. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are a self-creation. You are what you are. YOu have claimed to try and be a better editor. And then you fall back into all the same bad habits that you've always had. Everyone has tried to AGF you and your non-stop foolishness. But no matter how many second chances you are given... you still continue with as "Uselos-the edit warring troll" You are lucky you aren't banned for life from here. If you would just think "encyclopedia" and stop thinking "12 year old fanboy book report" you'd accomplish a lot more. Face up to it. Logos lost. Flags lost. Linebreaks lost. Move forward. Edit positively. There is still a chance to redeem. But I've looked at your last weeks worth of edits and what do I see.... same ol', same ol'. No effort to improve. Just a constant war to bring Wikipedia down to your level. Even if you became a stellar editor from here on in... you're blacklisted for life and you've managed to get some of your own Wiki-friends along with you. Either grow up... or get out. Libs (talk) 20:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First, you have continued with the incivil attitude. Second, the "habits" you speak of, I have not fallen back on. I have been thinking of the encyclopedia, and some shitty encyclopedia it is at times! Especially when things like NWOAHM exist as an article, but not in real life! Logos did indeed lose. Did you miss the part where I accepted that? Same with flagicons. I accepted that, too. Yes, I may argue for change (everyone does on wikipedia) but when a definite decision is made, I will follow the rules. Commas lost? Why are you telling me this? I know they've been losing. I never wanted them in the first place. Did you forget that I'm a line break supporter? I'm quite aware that line breaks have been winning over lately. So? I do move forward, ass. I have been! I only recently just stopped editing because I see that wikipedia is full of ridiculous idiots who think things like NWOAHM exist. The dude who supports and made that article does'nt even sound like he's from America. Many people have told him this "NWOAHM" does not exist and he needs to cut it out, but he refuses to listen. Same old? As I said, I haven't been editing a lot generally. I do still keep the genre delimiters the same if that's what you mean. If someone changes them, I change them back (though I have already said I rarely edit anymore anyways), but it's not my way or the highway. I tell them that it was decided at WP:METAL that genre delimiters would stay the same and if there is disagreement go to the talk page and come to a consensus and if enough people want it one way then it shall go that way! That's completely fair and I enforce and approve of it. You also need to realize that you are indeed an extremist. That's not always a bad thing, but there has to be balance. Look at my talk page. Do you think all those editors support me and have befriended because I'm a total fucking twat and they all are, too? Maybe you do. But there's many editors who support me and think I'm a fine editor (most of them just think I get too "passionate" and riled up at times; but we all do). I have "grown up," you should do the same, instead of dwelling in the past. You keep insulting me and I'll report you. I don't care if you like me or not , but I expect civility, as that is the wikipedian way. If you want to say something bad about me, state facts. "He's been blocked numerous times", etc. Dwell in the past if you want, just stop insulting me. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

More genre craziness

See this edit, for example. Enigma ^message 06:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre delimeters

If I am correctly informed, wikipedia does not favor either line breaks or commas. Therefore, you should not change these. I am restoring these pages to how they were before some Ip users change the page without consenus. While I did go overboard, I wish to make an effort so we don't go though a very messy edit war. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

But for those pages, especially my good friends in 'Voivod, I agree with the earlier consensus of the different IP editors to use commas. So I am restoring that consensus. Libs (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no consenus, just a bunch of ips who seemed to think that it would ba a good idea to start an edit war. None of these people even atempted to talk to anyone, they just change the page. And I've never heard of your unoffical rule, which just sounds like a way to get pass real consenus, that niether is favored. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If a whole bunch of different editors agree with the way a page should look... then yes that is consensus. The edit history of the page supports it. You are one against many. The only edit war is yours... sorry to say. Libs (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

One against many? No, YYYYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU are one against many. The only people I've seen that persistantly and warringly put in the comma shit is you and a bunch of annonymous users. Despite Wikipedia stating line breaks to be used, it doesn't clearly say that line breaks aren't allowed, as opposed to other rules which clearly state something common that's not allowed. More articles use line breaks than spaces, and there are still many, many of them that do. Besides, comma delimiting is ugly as hell. WTF? Capitalize the first, but not the rest? You're not stating sentences at all in the box, just the genres in alist. Even if genres aren't proper nouns, it's stupid to capitalize one but not the rest, line break delimiting looks beautiful with caps, and they should be capitalized for the same stupid reason why the first genre should in a comma list. The site says the point of an infobox is to state important information clearly and quickly, which means that line-breaks are a billion times better than commas. But I don't really care about capitalization, as long as all the genres are the same.

Stop being an admin wannabe, cuz ur neva gunna b 1. Angry Shoplifter (talk) 04:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI I've rejected 15 nominations to be an admin. I don't want it. Also, I am 46 so I am not a kid. Also.... see you when you get back. Have a nice day. Libs (talk) 04:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The new argument for situations when no one agrees with you is this, which he of course repeated about 25 times when it was pointed out that no one agreed with him. Enigma ^message 05:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Thruth be told Angry Shoplifter is actually right on that one... I would think. When a detailed discography page exists there is no need for a detailed discography in the main band article. That being said Angry S likes to add studio albums which... since there is a detailed discography alreay available.... are just as useless as the hits and live album listings. When he is blocked a few of us dedicated souls can follow up and delete the whole lot of them wherever a discography link is available. Libs (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I linked to the wrong thing. That was stupid. this is what I was trying to link. The other thing was the edit war I gave a 3RR warning for. Enigma ^message 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nougat

Done, dusted and prot'd. Hope you've kept the Wiki safe without me! Hope you're safe and well! Just bell me if you need anything! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

We'll do. I may have a block candidate or 2 quicker than you think :D. And then again... maybe I will just go home and go to bed :D. Libs (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know if I could speedy them so I put them both up for AfD. Cast your die! ;-) Go home and rest, Libsey. Grab a beer and just sit down... sitting and relaxing is the trendy thing to do nowadays! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ja, blocked the genre troll for a month. Clearly our old 68.X friend. And I've blocked the image stealer for a week and deleted most (I think) of his uploaded images. Ahoy! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers Libs

He's just fresh from a range block. My sister in law is in Detroit right now actually... Maybe her partner doesn't like me :-D Thanks for the revert! How are you? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's 3 am here and I'm playing in online chess tournaments. At least you're getting paid to "work" :-D I'll have a look into our Russkie friend in the morn. I promise! A new 12 hour range block has been placed on that IP. That's 65,000 IP addresses disabled. Wow! Pretty smooth. If you need anything or if you get bored just buzz me and I'll come running! Laters Libs! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I blocked your POV pusher. I can prot your talk page if you wish? Unless you like getting nice little messages like that? :-D - I'm trying to order another range block. The guy has a dial up so it's easy for him to get a new address. I feel sorry for him... I mean... who the hell uses dial up anymore?! :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Arena Rock

No problem. If you want to add Journey instead go for it. The source seemed to say that Styx, Journey, Foreigner and someone else were the main ones so I thought I'd add Foreigner since they were the first mentioned. To be honest I was surprised that it didn't mention Queen a single time there, and I'd never heard of Styx until I came across the wiki article. I guess that's what we're all here for: learning and helping others learn! Happy editing. Deamon138 (talk) 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)++

Boogie Rock AfD

Hello. I would be grateful if you would revisit the article and let me have some feedback. I think it would be especially helpful if you could check out the references and reconsider whether "no actual genre exists for this article to support". Thanks. BoogieRock (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Boogie Rock AfD

Hello.

Diligent has suggested on my talk page that I suggest you consider withdrawing the nomination. I'd be grateful if you would review the article and give this some thought. Cheers. BoogieRock (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Three editors have changed their support from delete to oppose; the question to ask is 'Would I have nominated the article for deletion if it looked like what it looks like now?'. Please let me know if you're willing to withdraw the AfD. Thank you. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I see that work has been done on the article but it wasn't really much of an improvement. The added citations are not good. The debate has good arguments for both keep and delete. If the article had a vast improvement that would be one thing. But the changes made since the nom have been weak. If the decision of the community is to keep then fine enough for me. Might as well let it run its course. Libs (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Need your help

I see you edit many music related articles. Thanks for the revert to the corrections I had made to the John Norum article. The "non-English" editor who composed most of the text in the article keeps reverting back to his own poor version. Do you know an administrator/editor who has a penchant for "proper English" and copyediting? The entire article is really bad and drifts away from the subject onto other topics quite often throughout the entire page. I could really use some help to try and cut it down in size (at least half of it can be deleted) and to try and improve the English in the article. I posted on my Guitarist Project talk page that the article looks like it was copied directly from a non-English website and put through the Babelfish online translator and then pasted directly onto Wikipedia. Any help would be great. Thanks and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 11:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reference offer. I won't have time to research for the article much at the moment as I am doing a little airport hopping around Oiler country. I will be online. But mostly from airports, hotels and kiosks for few days. When I am back in Motown I will try and build that article back up with some substance and keep the fansite content out of it. Thanks again for your assistance with the article. It wasn't just a low quality article. It was a copy of a low quality website. Not a good mix for Wikipedia. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

PS, while I have your attention. Since you do edit a lot of music related articles. Are you a guitar player? And would you like to join the Guitarist Project? We need more editors helping to improve guitar/guitarist related pages. Just a thought. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:IP editor

Hey thanks for doing that. I kind of forgot about that page.. *blush* Thingg^⊕⊗ 20:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Albums infobox

Not a problem. That change was a by-product of another change I was making, and presumed it would not be controversial. Do you think it's worth proposing this change? I'm asking because just yesterday I noticed what I'd have to call a feud between two user pages over the issue of commas vs. line breaks in an infobox. Apparently some people are quite passionate about it. Album and musician (and singles) infoboxes are very similar, with some identical parameters, so it makes sense for their instructions to be in sync. But since I'm an outsider to the music project, maybe I'm not the one to make a proposal. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Everything you said is pretty much what I suspected! :) --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 13:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Boogie Rock

Thank you once again for taking an interest in this article. I've read the policy you have cited, but unfortunately I haven't been able to understand why the links fall foul. Could you perhaps enlighten me so I will know for the future? Thanks.BoogieRock (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Ex link sections are for news article links etc related to the subject. Not for subjects who might be related to the article. Look at Rock music. There are no links there for any Rock music bands. If there was the External links section would be a mile long. Adding band links under a genre Ex link section is frowned upon. Libs (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.BoogieRock (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps. Libs (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

allmusic

Noticed that you're engaged in a low-level edit war on Sailing the Seas of Cheese, regarding capitalization of allmusic.com. Did you look at the site? They don't capitalize their own name. It's not even capitalized on Wikipedia? Would like you to do the right thing and reinstate the edit. Oblivy (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You should read the link for edit war. One edit is not an edit war. All fields in the infobox are considered sentences. That's why entries, like genres, are not capitalised beyond the first word in the first genre listed. The link for the allmusic review is no different and regardless of whether the official website is cap'd or not... a sentence starts with a capital letter. So I was 100% correct in my edit. And the IP that made the original edit is a known troll that is about to be handed a lengthy block for his disruption. Your lack of edit history indicates you don't know much about editing Wikipedia. If you have any questions feel free to ask and I will link you to the policies that cover you question. I also have many administrator friends who can assist you in learning how to edit properly. Libs (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

First, there was an edit and an undo in rapid succession without any discussion on the talk page, and there's nothing hard-and-fast that defines an edit war (you can read the definition like I did, but no real point arguing about this). Second, if you really think that you have support for "all fields in infoboxes are ... sentences" I'd like to know what that is. Third, although I have clearly touched a nerve, you could try to be civil about it and not make personal attacks based on what you perceive to be inexperience. I might not have the, literally, dozens of edits you do, but that's not a requirement to edit Wikipedia. Oblivy (talk) 19:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This account is new. From my previous IP range and my long retired original user account, I have made over 50000 edits to English Wikipedia. I am never wrong here. I didn't say "all fields in infoboxes". That makes it sound like every infobox on Wikipedia follows that format. I said in the infobox, meaning the album box. Album and song boxes are styled the same and Allmusic is cap'd in 99.9% of them. There is no need to discuss correcting the edits of a repeat offender with multiple blocks like the IP troll the other day. All edits from that IP can just be reverted. I have over 2 dozen close Wiki-friends among the admin crew here. If someone earns a block, then they get blocked quickly. I AGF for as long as patience allows. But some editors never learn and so their privileges are removed. If you don't like Allmusic being capitalised your quarrel isn't with me. Perhaps you should ask the Wikipedia administrators who created the bot editor that has just finished changing 67000 links for All Music Guide into Allmusic with a capital A. Here is a list of acceptable review sites. It includes Allmusic as well as many others. Allmusic is the most used(overused) link in Wikipedia. Sorry to see your user talk page got vandalised. Happens sometimes when an uber-troll slips through the locks. The userpage from the account that I used back in 2004-2006 era was vandalised over 100 times. From 2006 through to early this year I edited strictly as an anon. After rolling over 30000 anonymous edits and fighting to redeem the integrity of anonymous editing which had come under attack by the "account only" klan, I retired completely from the project in March. I believe Wikipedia was built on by anonymous editors (except for editors like the Seas of Cheese pr**k) and the whining of the "account only" group was getting way too loud. I was only coaxed back in after being bombed with non-stop emails for 2 months following my departure. So here I am. Have a nice day and good luck with your editing. Libs (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been around James. I won't have internet access for a while now as our electric meter is being replaced. I'll talk to you when I can. Hopefully speak soon! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Prob Pat! Hope you get wired soon. :D Libs (talk) 18:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

AMoLaD

Have you ever heard prog metal? I don't think so. Say one reason, why AMoLaD is NOT prog metal. Listen to The Legacy. It's very simple to revert my changes for two people, because only I can be trapped by the 3-reverts-rule. I could seem as an amateur editor, but I'm experienced, I know everything... And what does "rm" mean? Diaby ^talk 19:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

rm = remove. rv = revert. Just 2 of many lazy typing shortcuts. Wikipedia isn't based on personal opinion. Its based on verifiable content. The the Iron Maiden album has a 1% similarity to progressive metal means nothing. The guideline for the box is to keep it simple, aim for generality, no superfluity etc etc etc. Iron Maiden are a heavy metal band that plays heavy metal music. Plain, simple, encyclopedic and unhindered by single editor pov. Check the edit history of the article. On the rare occasion someone comes along and tries to stick a little cotton candy into the genre field... like adding progressive metal... it gets removed. On Wikipedia that is "edit weight" and it adds up to WP:CON concrete. Libs (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also add that the whole Iron Maiden/Prog metal thing is a horse that has already been beat to death several times over on the Iron Maiden article discussion page and the consensus there was that they were heavy metal... and nothing else. Libs (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gibson Thunderbird

Hi, I think you might want to check the text you left on my userpage, as I actually removed the list as per the project consensus, yet you have added it back and warned me for it, and also warned me for "falsely" warning another user. Thedarxide (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Because I accidentally clicked on the wrong username/IP. Either way, my edit to the article was correct, which negates 90% of what you left on my talk page. I'm happy to apologise for my mistake but I think we both needed to check our facts here... Thedarxide (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Fortunately there was a database fault which stopped me from replying, Libsey. I will check into what happened (Although I might disappear for an hour or two as I might have McD's for dinner. The missus is holidaying in Sweden again and she can't stop me now! :-D Har-de-har!) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

He apologised which is okay. He just needs to be careful. I shall leave him a friendly note. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Bah, coffee is just as bad! I left him a note, btw. I'll check back in a couple of hours! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, blocked for 2 weeks. Food time now! Check you soon! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Our paths cross again

Thanks for looking into the warning I received in error earlier today. I do not use Huggle as a vandal tool. When I posted you previously I asked you if you would be interested in joining the WikiProject Guitarists. You edit a lot of music and guitar related articles. Perhaps you weren't interested or were still thinking about it? Or did I just miss a reply message? Or if you are devoted to another Wiki-project that is certainly OK. It's easy to get stretched thin on here. Maybe you know of others who are regular editors of guitar articles and would be interested in joining the project. Feel free to pass along any names of anyone you think would be interested in our project. Thanks again for the help earlier. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 20:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. As for the project... I am an editor of all things music so I consider myself an unofficial member of all the music oriented projects. I read all their talk pages and guidelines and I follow all the different project rules. But I never actually clan up with any of them them otherwise I would have a userpage full of Project membership templates. I am a guitar player and I do follow the Guitarist Project very closely. Feel free to alert me to anything project related and I will help. As I do with the Motorhead Project, the Led Zeppelin Project, the Classical Music Project, the Jazz Project etc etc etc. Have a nice day! Libs (talk) 13:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Stress

I think I'm getting a stomach ulcer from stress: 1) I don't know if I've scrounged enough money for a pizza I've already ordered. 2) The lady on the phone didn't even ask me for my address, so that's a bit confusing. 3) I still have Osgood-Schlatter disease in my knee 8 years after first getting it. 4) My partner is having a great time in Sweden and was continually telling me how great it was despite the fact that she knows it makes jealous. And I've decided to stop speaking to her because it just makes me depressed. 5) My fucking poodle won't stop barking at invisible things and people are getting angry at me at night. I don't feel well :-( Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That is a lot to be stressful about. But it sounds like you are inviting the stress just by thinking about all the things that are stressing you out (does that make sense?) You need to go somewhere where there is scenery that will take your mind off the things that are stressing you. As I recall the Xscape in MK is overpopulated with hot "birds" in extremely short/skimpy/revealing clothes with a low emphasis on the need for underwear. Focus on the abundance of skin and try and forget your stress. (leave the dog home) Libs (talk) 14:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Libsey. I shall go down to a lake later tonight and just go for a nice walk :-) In unrelated news someone tailed you: [1] - No doubt he's evading one of our blocks so I popped him in his unmentionables :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Saw that. I got an edit conflict on try to do the same :D . I suspect many an IP to give us similar trouble over the weekend. Libs (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Category:Melodic rock

If Category:Rock music genres is not the right place for this category, where should it go? Stepheng3 (talk) 15:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aliens Online

Thanks for the backup, Libs. Good to cross paths with you again. --IllaZilla (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

It takes a team to keep Wiki clean! Libs (talk) 22:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

A different straw poll on Talk:The Beatles

It would be easy to overlook because there are now two polls going at the same time. The newest one is here. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate rock

on what basis does corporate rock = arena rock?RCHM (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't it? Stadium rock, corporate rock all just = arena rock. The corporate rock page just regurgitates what is already on the arena rock page except the AR page has a weak attempt at structure and citation. The previous re-direct was LONG overdue. Libs (talk) 00:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Corporate rock carries a much more condescending and insulting intent from music journalism than arena rock. But I'm curious, as your tone seems to indicate a distaste for the content, why didn't you simply AfD both articles on the grounds of being esoteric, or something? I frankly don't care if the articles stay or go, just that the data is monitored in some way.

"why doesn't it" is not a very good response. Could you give me a little more analysis than that? I was looking for something with more substance, as the edits that led to this had no depth. I'm concerned whenever an article of 3~4k of text essentially disappears with no reasoning offered by anyone. Even if it was sent to AfD, at least some sort of discussion on the issue would have been broached. RCHM (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD works great for the borderline articles. Speedy D is perfect for the obvious ones. And for the "why waste anyone else's time on it".. there is WP:BOLD. Which is what the original re-direct editor seemed to be thinking when the edit was made. I have invited him to your conversation on the matter. My only major dislike of the arena rock page is that Wikipedia is over=populated with "genre-impaired" editors who add the term to the genre fields of music related article infoboxes. Areno rock is not a genre and yet it's always popping up as one and it takes editor time, which is better spent vandal hunting or contributing ref'd content, to rm it from the genre misplacement. The arena rock page is weak because its ref foundation is thin. It simply needed more. The corporate rock page was a goner. Falling other bogus pages like cock rock and butt rock and hair metal to a justified wiki-death. Libs (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. The problem with this particular field as I see it is that no (good) band identifies themselves with a genre, thus leaving the problem to their fans and music critics. I think this kind of problem will pervade ALL genre of music articles.

I mean seriously, lets consider Arena rock. Given the current data, wouldn't one identify any band thats ever played a venue with arena qualities an arena rock band? Wouldn't any band thats ever made a living off a corporate record deal be a corporate rock group? Who decides the line of applying such terms other than critics? I ramble... but anyways, I think the terms themselves are relevant, even if the application of them is highly suspect and subjective. Maybe we can figure something out.RCHM (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

MSN

Get on if you can? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Iron Maiden

Then why if it was a FA was taken off, I know that now it's not that good, that's why I'm trying to improve it, but need some help too. There's also waaay too much missing information, you just google Iron Maiden and find substancial info and very important about them, well of course if it's one of the best metal bands in history, then why not to improve the article to make a FA again? [Answer back on my talk page please] -- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree with you, right now I'm about to log out, but when I come back I'll work on it, would be really glad if you, or anyone else helps me, it's obvious that it need improvement.-- Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Aerosmith Page

I received your warning, and thought this was discussed and agreed upon last April. I am just learning about this site, but not spamming. I have copied and pasted the following from the Aerosmith Discussion Page. I thought I was supposed to ask questions there. Instead, someone just kept deleting the link. I thought your page was being vandalized, and that is why I kept re-adding it, as no one answered on the discussion page. Would you add the link again? Thank you.

From Aerosmith Discussion Page:

"== External links ==

Would like to add

• AeroNewsDaily.com - News About Aerosmith

for the guideline listed as: "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Thanks Sakutak (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm cool with that, unless somebody else has a problem with it. Abog (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Why has the link, *AeroNewsDaily.com - News About Aerosmith

been removed again? The critera above is still being met. Is someone "not cool" with it, and why? Thanks. Sakutak (talk) 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC) "

Sakutak (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:EL - do not knowingly link to websites which contain copyright violations or material which is unsourced and likely to be a copyright violation. And that website is abundant with picture and video links that are unsourced or used without proper consent. Simple as that. Libs (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, then, it's your call. Everything in that site is accompanied with a link to the source. Every picture/video is given courtesy and linked as well. I usually email for permission on any picture I post. I also am not making any kind of profit - just providing a service of sharing information regarding Aerosmith from knowledgeable sources - a collection of sorts. I thought the information might be useful to someone searching for information on your site regarding Aerosmith. I thought that's what you are all about??? But yes, delete it, for sure.

However, in your interpretation, the links below should be deleted, as well, for your page on Steven Tyler, as they contain the same - and are just people like me. I copied and pasted them for you. Thanks:

"==External links==

• Steven Tyler at Aeroworld
• Steven Tyler hundreds of Pictures at SexyStevenTyler"

I deleted this entire comment as well as the one on the Aerosmith discussion page. I do not wish my link on this website. I do not know why you would insist on re-adding the comments. I do not wish to be a member of Wikipedia. I would like my account and all comments deleted. Thanks. The addition of the link was approved in April by Abog. Your views on the quality of the web site were not requested. Sakutak (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. As long as they don't try and spam it with poor quality amateur fansites and cruft. Have a nice day. Libs (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Brian Jones

Hello,

Why not a header for his dismissal from the Stones? In my opinion after that the Death header can be placed.

Greetings, Rob —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.45.89.38 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV Libs (talk) 14:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

David Knopfler

Would you please refrain from removing sourced text from the David Knopfler (and also the Mark Knopfler) article. Your edits are unconstructive.

Thanks. 92.12.125.159 (talk) 21:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, no yours are. Knopfler is born in Scotland. Therefore he is Scottish. Pretty simple. Libs (talk) 01:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Right - despite the fact that he isn't Scottish and there is reference where he clearly describes himself as English. Pretty simple - he was born in Scotland to non-Scottish parents and grew up in England. Until you can justify your edit (which you can't as you will not find any reference to him describing himself as Scottish - hence why you removed the reference already in place), please refrain from edit warring.

92.11.205.217 (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Adult contemporary music

The name is the article is "Adult contemporary music" and you're going to actually say that it isn't "music", but a radio format only? The style of music is used to determine the name of the radio station/format as well as the musical charts (i.e. Billboard AC chart). "A radio format or programming format describes the overall content broadcast on a radio station."[2] In other words, a rock music radio format plays rock music; a Christian radio format plays contemporary christain music, and an AC radio format plays AC music. I've rewritten the into of the AC article, using quotes. Orane (talk) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Point taken, and I probably deserved such a response. It may be late, and believe it (or not) but I actually apologize for me behaviour for the past few week/days.

Regarding the infobox, that may have been taking it too far. It was actually done out of frustration, but I still believe it is useful. You claim that only genres are to be placed in the infobox. Yet majority of infoboxes still reference popular/pop music as a genre even though it is a category of music, and not a genre (the Wikipedia article even emphasizes this). AC music still is a style (ballad heavy soft rock music/crooner/vocal music) and as many of you told me, style and genre are often used interchangeably.

If you can find a source to support the claim that AC is a radio format, then by all means add it. I would add it, but nothing in my sources state this, and you reverted my earlier change stating that my addition was unsupported by the references [3].

Finally, not that I need to justify or prove myself, but I'm extremely knowledgeable about music, musical terms etc. I don't need your help. If you fail to make the connection between a radio format and the style of the music played on it, then chances are, you're not someone I'd want advise from :). Orane (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

And seriously, can we stop this? We're acting like bitchy teens. We're both adult men here. I'll be the bigger man here and say that from now on I'll be more civil if you decide to be more civil. I'm really not an asshole (only sometimes when I'm angry) Generally, I'm a nice guy. Really. I am.

And pass the word on to Scarian. I was actually just trying to piss him off when I reverted him the first time. Then he threatened me, and it got out of hand. I was actually gonna apologize, but he left. Orane (talk) 03:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Buckethead

Hey, Libs. Can you watch this and make sure it isn't undone if I'm not around? Thanks. — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 11:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC) Sure... you got it!. Libs (talk) 12:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Eric Clapton

I reviewed the controversy section and responded here. Washburnmav (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am still biased against the length of the section because I believe the issue to be very minor. But I respect you opinion as an editor... it's why I prompted you to review in the first place :) . Libs (talk) 10:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about man?

Tell me what the f**** are you talking BOUT. i HAVEN'T MESS AROUND WITH ANY fa, AND IF i HAVE TELL ME WHERE IT WAS! Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ohh now I know MEGADETH! well let me tell you this YOU ARE NOT THE ARTICLE'S OWNER. understand? tell me where have you senn Megadeth is an American Heavy metal, first it's thrash metal (heavy and speed are second to teir main style -thrash), also you need to put thrash metal, not Thrash metal, you are the one messing around with FA, you only revert edits and that's it, I haven't seen any edit comning from you that has actually helped the article, once again YOU ARE NOT WIKIPEDIA'S OWNER! Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am. Libs (talk) 10:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Deceased group members

I've seen a few articles where band members have their name, followed by (deceased). Whats wrong with that? It's just a little extra information for people who do not already know this. Surely this is the main reason such the articles exist in the first place, or even why the whole wikipedia site exists! (I mean the information in general, not just deceased information) What's so bad about adding this word after people's names if they are no longer with us? It is factual, non-opinionative and does not slate them in anyway. --Cexycy (talk) 22:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Violation 3RR

I'm aware I violated it already, as I said. Could you possibly revert TheSickBehemoth's edits for me? I already slapped a warning template onto his page as well for vandalism. His edits may be in good faith, but he linked a download link twice, (after I told him not to) and he's now simply using his own judgment as a last stand. (After I told him to cease because that constitutes original research.) I believe hard and steady in citing everything on Wikipedia -- Even genres. I would appreciate if you could revert his edits because they constitute original research, and if he does it again, I will report him to WP:AIV. Thank you so much. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

It's simple. I typed that removing the hidden comment without first adding a citation could be an offense, if pursued. If pursued. He also posted a download link to download the song, and when I took it down, he reposted it after I told him that download links are against the rules. I already told you as well as him that I know that his edits are in good faith, but after being warned, even in good faith, is it still not bannable? Especially with that download link he reposted twice after being warned? In any case, I know I already violated the 3RR, but I do not see the warning I gave him as false, or even a misuse. I see it as perfectly justified, and remember WP:WAX, too, for 99.9% of music content. Just because it can't be cited in the infobox, doesn't mean it can't be cited in the article, in my opinion. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

If somebody wants to pursue a consensus, they can do so on the talk page. I never said anyone couldn't its just that nobody has yet tried. But also: let me ask; if a group of users have reached a consensus to make an article on, say, Martin Luther King, Jr. say "I'm gay," could they through consensus? A consensus should not typically break any rules, including WP:V and WP:OR. --The Guy _complain ^edits 22:49, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Kashmir cite template question

Someone has removed the paragraph at Kashmir (song) which you added {{fact}} tags to on 2008-08-11. Does the OR template concern just those sentences, or are you questioning other parts of the article? If not, I will remove the template. Sswonk (talk) 01:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The entire "Other versions" section is reason enough to keep the tag. So it's staying. Sswonk (talk) 01:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I hate "in pop culture" and "trivia" sections. Libs 01:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Rockk3r

Someone deleted ths comment I put on you talk page archive:

I violated all those rules (without knowing it) because you started talking to me and saying "dont mess w/ FA" as if I had done something sooo bad, as if I was a criminal, that really got me mad, because I just wanted to help Megadeth's page and still dont know what I did wrong to it. Also WarCry's discography it's still an offer that goes on the house, just tell me if you'd like to have and I'll give it to you. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 16:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Bryan Adams

Why are you removing Rock N' Roll, theres not a conseus for it and wikipedia guidlines clearly sais sources are right and not personnal opinions as you are doing, this is what they have done on the Paramore page, they even discussed it so STOP REMOVING ROCK N' ROLL WHEN IT HAS A SOURCE. Don't revert my edit until this discussion is over. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 16:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe someone else will be speaking with you about your editing issues but it won't be me. See you when/if you get back. Have a nice day. Libs 16:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

First don't call me edit warrior/sockpuppeteer and its only you that has a problem with Rock N' Roll as a genre when it has a source. 156.34.142.110 he. Arena rock is it a guidline which sais you can't have a infoboxs on a music format, cause if it isn't i'm gonna revert it. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 17:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you bringing up Arena rock? I thought you were edit warring about genres? Arena rock isn't a genre. And what exactly does your ttyping above mean? There are words there... but they make absolutely no sense. Please do not drink a beer before editing. Being drunk doesn't help your skills. Libs 17:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so mean? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not mean. You've seen my IP page. IPs don't get that many barnstars if they're mean. They get them for being good editors who follow policy. But I am a firm believer in "don't f*ck around", "don't waste my time.. or anyone else's time", "don't spin your wheels". You really need to discuss your edits before you do them. The Pink Floyd project doesn't want you to edit thei PF page away from how they choose to make it look. Don't just rv their member edits... discuss them. You are bound and determined to get blocked again. This time it won't be for 1 week... it'll be for 2 or 3 or a month. Perhaps even a community sanction to have you banned because you violate WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR and WP:DICK so much. Editors with over 10000 edits have been banned for acting the way that you do. Just because you might do 12 constructive edits in a row doesn't negate your 13th edit which is a prick edit and not a constructive one. Ask for help. One editor even asked the last admin who blocked you if he would unblock you so that the editor could try and assist you. But the admin turned down the request to mentor you. That's an awful lot of AGF from an editor to try and help you like that after the way you've repeatedly acted. Lighten up and have some fun here. Don't be so ignorant. Learn to spell. It all helps. Libs 19:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Most of my edits are constructive, and what are you talking about the Pink Floyd project, havn't gotten in an edit war with any of them and a guy even said that the work i did on the PF discography was good. And yes i'm angry when you are reverting edits which has reliable sources. And unconstructive edits, the only unconstructive edits happens cause of guys like you which denies reliable sources and removes them. That wasn't meant as a personal attack. And who tried to assist me and just tell me when i have acted ignorant, think its more right to say that i have acted as a pain in the ass.

Where have you gotten that the Pink Floyd project doesn't want me, never heard that? I'm a firm believer of don't "f*ck around". Oh and talk to me instead of trying to block okay, then maybe i'll improve. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC) <= ignorant cuss eh!

Re: your AIV report

Sorry I'm going to be a bit blunt with you, but I need you to understand that new editors may not be familiar with every rule of the Wiki, and have no idea which line they cross when someone templates them with no apparent reason. this is not an helpful message. These neither. Please imagine that a good willing administrator blocks them after that, with a cute template such as {{uw-block1}}. How do you think they react? This is bad PR, and some messages might go a long way. So please, assume good faith when it is needed. This user probably thinks he's being helpful and might not understand why a big warning appears on his page every 5 minutes. Real messages (such as this one) take time, but you're not alone looking at the recent changes and remember that a little kindness goes a long way. If he continues, templates and a block is still doable and you know he's hopeless. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I could have templated {{uw-aiv}} {{AIV|c}} {{AIV|n}} Please discuss it with the user. instead ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

They are a serial pov vandal... blanking citations from content that they disagree with. That is vandalism. They aren't newbies. They have been blocked numerous times for doing what they were warned for today. Why discuss? They will just ignore. Not worth anyone's time of day for discussion. being nice nice to trolls and vandals doesn't work. There are very few decent "reformers" on here. Not too many I've seen in my 4+ years here. That's for sure. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Then you need to provide more input to your request. The IP was not blocked for that behavior before and is shared among several users. I still see no strong evidence of repeated abuse. -- lucasbfr ^talk 18:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Got 'em confused with 68.102.235.239 from August 6. Same fingers behind their keyboard... same modus operandi... different locale. Knew I'd seen 'em at some point previously. I have over 5000 pages on my watchlist. They all look the same after awhile. I remember the habits of the "repeaters" though. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely the infamous genre troll. I shall inform lucasbfr. Utan Vax (talk) 21:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Libsey. It's great to be here to this place I've never ever been to before. Magically I've grasped all of our policies in meer seconds which makes me the greatest Wikipedian of all time. And I'm pretty sure you're a Canadian Librarian? Did I get that right? I don't know, but I just get these visions of past lives or something just as awesome. I'm also very sure you edited as an IP at some point? Am I right? For a long time yes? Like 4+ years? And you took me under your wing for a whole year and taught me the ropes of the Wiki-Wiki-World? With some guy called Elf? Alf? And Bobba? Bubba Ho-tep? I must be right. You taught me that I was always right :-D Good to be back. Utan Vax (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you bastard. Almost had you. Utan Vax (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go. Hopefully someone will tell him to sort it out. I can't touch your AfD's though! ;-) Naughty Libsey. Always canvassing me :-D - Well, that's if we knew each other, of course... which we don't. Runs away into his little corner of England Utan Vax (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains Albums

Please stop changing the next and last albums listed for Facelift, Dirt, and Alice in Chains. Sap and Jar of Flies may not be full-length albums, but the fact is the former came out in between Facelift and Dirt and the latter came out in between Dirt and Alice in Chains. If you think only full-length albums should be listed there, you might as well take out We Die Young as the last album listed in the Facelift article.Shaneymike (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:ALBUM formatting rules. Succession ignores compilations, live albums, EPs n such. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. But how come Facelift and Dirt can be listed as such in Sap and Dirt and Alice in Chains can be listed as such in Jar of Flies. Shaneymike (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I just did the same thing with all the articles for The Cure's studio albums. Shaneymike (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Good work! The Real Libs-speak politely 21:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

WarCry

So, what do you think of WarCry?, you don't need to tell me you liked it even if you didn't, just wanted to know what do you think of them. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Testament

Are you willing to help me? or you are only interested on the big four? (place { {tb} } on my talk page when you read this Rockk3r Spit it Out! 00:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but didn't get the first part of your conversation :). What I want you to help me with is Testament discography. WarCry's next album promises to be totally different and renewed sound (they changed three of their members) I hope they won't make me cry as Tallica did the last 18 years. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It would take me another 18 years to tell you evrything about it. If you like St. Anger good for you I stay w/ the old Metallica. Well that's been ultra-re-discussed for millions of time and we won't get to any agreement by arguing about it, just wanted to know if you'd help me with Test disco or not.

PD: St Anger was one of the best metal albums of all times, even better than Master. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:13, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that metallica's members are some of the most influential in heavy metal, you said that w/ Master they didn't make any friends... well every time you see a good review about them it's remebering kill'em, ride, master, and justice, and most of the black album's songs too. I don't wanna start discussing this because it would take me nowhere. You said that to release an album like St Anger it's needed to have balls, that's true, but they made some millions out of it, the ones that Maiden couldn't do with Brave New world, dance of death and a matter of... That now hurts my balls. What I mean is that I'm proud of saying I'm a Met-fan but there many, many, many other metal bands that are way underrated.

About Anthrax, my personal opinion is that it shouldn't have even been included on the big 4 (that place should have it Testament) anthrax could have been named (The biggest of 'hardcore' that's it, nothing to do w/ my music. period.

I respect your opinion and won't tell you anything about it, I just don't wannastart fighting for something that can't be solved, all this time we could spend it on articles that need of our help. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

You said that "that Wiki-project is populated with teenager/schoolkids who aren't very good editors" I agree with you, look for emo punk bands and see the difference on the article's magnitude compared to heavy metal bands. (Also I'm just 19 -a school kid- but don't even wanna hear about those types of music like the jonas sisters.

I am well past forty-five on the downslope to fifty. So I can remember when heavy metal was Jimi Hendrix, Cream and Jeff Beck. Then Led Zeppelin made real heavy metal and I was hooked on the genre. I like whatever is creative and interesting. Not just re-hash. Only certain bands are allowed to do that. Motorhead, AC/DC... they can just keep releasing the same album over-and-over as long as they want... its still good. Some bands can't do that. Like Testament. They released they same album for the first 5 albums. Very little change/progress/challenge. They're all good... but they're all basically the same. It's why they were never part of a "big" anything. They relegated themselves to being a club band/opening act for the remainder of their careers. Shame too... since Low ended up being a great album... probably their best. But it was too little... too late. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When experience talks I listen and respect; I agree with you. Hey now, I'm gonna ask you a big favor and hope can find help here. Could you help me w/ WarCry's introducction (lead) on the article, I just can't make it right. I'm working on it really hard trying to make it a FA, recently I made it a FA candidate, but it failed because of the lead, some grammar errors, and some problems with the references (citation) which I didn't put the right way (showing the author and everything). Once again, could you help me w/ the lead? Also i left a message on Tallica's talkpage - the lead is way too long-. [Please, place {{tb}} on my talk page to know you read this)  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for the Barnstar. I really appreciate it. Peter Fleet (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you #2

Thanks for your kind words on the Thin Lizzy talk page. Hopefully I've managed to write something to calm the stormy waters. Time will tell! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! I really appreciate it. Likewise, I can say that I never need to check your edits when I see them on my watchlist - they're always spot on. The work I did on the Thin Lizzy article was more effort than I generally put in, but I really felt that the band deserved a decent write-up. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Metallica associated acts.....

Sorry, I wasn't familiar with the template, if this is the case, should we remove Flotsam and Jetsam and Exodus since they don't fall into either category?.....then conversely should we add Echobrain since it was an entirely new band that had not released a record yet when Jason left (as opposed to Voivod that had already existed and recorded for many years)?......Arch stanton1138 (talk) 00:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

As much as I'd like to contribute here, my current job doesn't leave much time. Also I got a GRE coming up next year. I hope to return to wikipedia with my account some time later. Welt^anschaunng 16:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

BTW, is the pic on your user page of the place where you work? which university? Welt^anschaunng 17:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

What's going on?

Every time I make an edit to either Megadeth, Metallica, or Slayer you revert it to the last versoin, what's going on?? Rockk3r Spit it Out! 04:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They were unreq'd edits... sometimes, like the reference hiding, going against the rules. Featured Articles don't need to be tampered with unless its an improvement. With your edits to those articles... the previous version was better. The Real Libs-speak politely 09:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

• The hiding references were in Megadeth's article like a month ago, I didn't put it there, check the history. Don't thik that all of your edits are perfect, you're just revertin what you don't like. If there's something you don't like the way it looks, don't just revert it, but talk it out on the articles talk page to see a way to improve it, you are acting a little crazy (no offense). Rockk3r Spit it Out! 03:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Never noticed the hidden references in the Megadeth article. I will correct them now. Someone must of shrunk them after it was FA's and no one caught it. If you read the FA procedures you will see where is talks about them. I actually prefer the hidden reflists. But I have built a few dozen FAs in my day and have seen... many times... that it is always one of the points that have to be corrected before the page can be promoted. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to find out why I can't correct information, why people get to add whatever they want. If you just keep deleting my argument, you're not helping. -MetalKommandant (talk) 16:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: Question re: linkspammer

The site's been blacklisted. I'll keep an eye on the Kiss articles, but if he pops up again, let me know. GlassCobra 10:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Starcaster by Fender

Could you explain the uncommented revert, please? NickS (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Better image in the box. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a heads up on this 90.201.141.112 guy

I see you've been reverting his edits aswell. Judging from his edits, and how he won't reason, I believe it is infact this guy, who has already been blocked for 3 months once. He won't stop until he's blocked again. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 17:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN is the place to go.

Or, if they're IPs and new accounts, you can request it be prot'd! Utan Vax (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're quite welcome, Master. You are gonna go buy the new SW game right? The Force Unleashed - Heading towards non-canon, but still looks nice none the less ;-) But that's just me, SW generation right here. Utan Vax (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

ThinkGeek article

Thanks for removing the speedy deletion tag from the ThinkGeek article. I noticed this morning that two users, GeekyGuild and Special:Contributions/WIKIGUY PATROL, appear to be trying to remove all mention of this company, and links to it, from Wikipedia (and the first user seems to be indiscriminately deleting URLs without looking at the context around them, causing some broken {{cite web}} templates and nonsense sentences), and that both these users only just registered this morning and haven't made any other edits other than this ThinkGeek-related stuff. I personally don't know anything about ThinkGeek, but i just stumbled across those edits and it all looked rather fishy to me.

Thanks again, --Politizer (talk) 14:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No prob. I just happen to have the admin you spoke to on my watchlist. I don't normally read talk page posts. But I use pop ups and just let my cursor sit on the diff for a second... read your post... and could smell troll around our new users activities. And I hate trolls. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 15:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix tremolo arm

Just for your information, the edits you reverted here [4] are not so much violations of WP policy but a complete failure by 'A plague of rainbows' to notice the obvious: Hendrix played his guitars left-handed and upside down.    SIS  13:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They also completely ignore WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Twelve year olds shouldn't edit. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tsk tsk tsk, careful now ;-) I once said a 14 year-old shouldn't be an admin and boy, did I get flamed. But I see your point.    SIS  13:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of I have voted for several young'ns as admins. But they were above n beyond editors who really had a grasp on "encyclopedia". Those editors are few and far between.... even amongst the grey hairs.... like me :). The Jimi Hendrix article should be a stellar showpiece on Wikipedia. But it is a magnet for fanboys and, over the years, the damage done to article has been extensive. It is a horribly written page. But eventually someone will come along who really knows how to polish the turd. I've sandbox'd it a few times. But as I read I only get to the third or fourth paragraph before my head starts to spin and I just have to say what the f*ck!!! *sigh* The Real Libs-speak politely 13:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey Libsey, Cobalt got it before me. Give him a barney! Allting ar bra, tack! Hur mar du? Going to Oktoberfest real soon (9 days!) and what with all of these 737 crashes recently I'm pretty sure I'm having an aneurysm in advance! I'm gonna go to the doctors at some point to get some valium. I'm gonna take so much I'll be completely out of it by the time I get to the check in desk. How's everything with you, my good Canadian friend? Another trip planned to MK any time soon? Take care buddy! Utan Vax (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath(,) Vol. 4

Not that I doubt that there is a comma in the name, but could you show me either the label catalogue or the online music vendors that list the name as Black Sabbath, Vol. 4? Allmusic lists the name with a comma, Rolling Stone doesn't, and doing a Google search results in a random amounts of commas and comma-less titles. I want to be somewhat confident in the name before I propose this at WP:RM. Xnux the Echidna 02:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:62.31.206.40

As much as you might not like someone's edits, calling them "pea-brained" is a personal attack. I know we all get annoyed at times, but you have to keep it civil. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 20:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Queerbubbles, that IP is a part of the infamous "genre-changer" IP ring. All edits by a 62.X IP that change a genre (to suit his own POV) must be reverted. Utan Vax (talk) 20:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Which lucasbfr has just blocked for a month! Utan Vax (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

There is civil... and then ther are trolls who do not deserve civil. And they won't receive it from me. I lost my AGF four years ago. I reserve it for dedicated editors.... not trolls/vandals. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you go!

[5] - Wow, de ja vu! I think I've done this for you many, many times before in a past life or something... Crazy, huh? :-D You gotta start writing your own friendly notes, those generic automated notes just don't cut it. Notice my vocab in that message... "ask you to" - allusion of being in charge of a decision... he has no choice to toe the line :-D Utan Vax (talk) 21:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Come on MSN if you can. If you can't, I'll e-mail you. Utan Vax (talk) 22:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Hed PE

Helllo Wiki libs. You appear to be edit warring to restore information added by Prophaniti, who is now blocked for 3RR. (I heard about you via User talk:EdJohnston#Hed PE). This is curious, and I started wondering if you were a sock of Prophaniti, but now I see you have a long record here. Please join Talk:Hed PE and explain the logic of your edits. Your recent contributions seem to contain a huge proportion of reverts, which tends to make admins nervous. (That makes them think that 'edit warrior' is a description that fits). Your last 50 contributions don't include any comments on article Talk pages. My apologies if there is a reasonable explanation for your recent editing pattern. EdJohnston (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at User talk:EdJohnston#Feel free.

Thanks for your extremely thorough response! I really don't consider you a sock, I was just trying to figure out if anything could be done about the genre wars on certain music articles. Obviously that's a large problem to solve. EdJohnston (talk) 16:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Content disputes are not vandalism in any form or fashion, talk about not assuming good faith. Unexplained blanking of sourced material can be considered vandalism. Landon1980 (talk) 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blanking a verifiable reference from a reliable source is vandalism. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to you that is. Landon1980 (talk) 19:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I am the law. ;( The Real Libs-speak politely 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

LOl Ok I see, I don't want to get locked up so I'll straighten my act up :). I would like to point out one thing to you though: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism WP:VANDALISM." I have only the best intentions, I may be wrong about this. I'm not saying offline references can never be used; I just don't see how we as a project can expect other editors to have to run out and buy a book just to verify something. What if they can't afford to buy a book. The content is supposed to be easily verifiable. To me dressing the kids, fueling up the car, and running down town to the bookstore is a little much to ask. Especially when the said content is being introduced by someone as disruptive as Prophaniti. Landon1980 (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I dislike Mr Prophaniti for the most part as I have seen attempts by him to regress pages that are near-FA because his personal opinion is that an FA status page means nothing. That being said he has correctly added sources for content that is, even without sources, valid text. There are negative connotations to the term that he is trying to add to the article in question. And teenybopper fanboys will type to the last fingernail to try and remove it because they would prefer to portray the encyclopedia page as their own personal fanpage. Negative connotations or not... it doesn't negate the truth of them. There is nothing disruptive there. Glam metal used to be a brazen insult 25 years ago. Now its an era looked back on in fondness. 20 years from now nu-metal will be an almost forgotten footnote. But when it comes up in the press... likely due to some boneheaded retro revival... the press will say... "new band X... shows a similar style to pioneering nu-metal bands like Korn and Deftones and Slipknot". Whether that is accurate or not in the eyes of the fanboys doesn't matter... thats just how it is... and that is how it will be. When I was a young kid there were these frightening heavy metal acts that were warping peoples minds.... acts like Jimi Hendrix, Cream and the Jeff Beck Group. That was "heavy" music... no music will ever reach those heights of "heavy." Times change. Referenced content from reliable sources is like concrete. There is only one way to get rid of it. If someone has 3 cites saying "yellow".... someone else has to come up with 6 cites saying "red". You can only negate a reliable reference.... with twice as many reliable references. Anything else is just pov. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Music From The Elder

Why did you revert Music_from_"The_Elder" ? Do you even know anything about music. Methinks you need to learn to be a little less quick to revert edits when you know nothing about the subject. Jcam (talk) 20:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Whoa... you've awoken a sleeping dragon. Utan Vax (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This guy (the one you showed me from before) needs some serious shepherding, btw Libs. He's one of those people who have POV genre crusades ("MEGADEATH ARE NOT FUCKING HARD ROCK" - Ha... check out his userpage). I need to write an essay about this... seriously... WP:GENRE... Hmm... Utan Vax (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We must AGF because he's only 11. Same with the Music from the Elder dweeb. :D The Real Libs-speak politely 22:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Max Webster

Out of curiousity, why did you remove the image from the Max Webster page? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a violation of the WP:FAIR policy. Album covers are only fair-use in the article about the album the cover is sourced from. I specified that in my edit summary along with the link to the policy. It can't be used anywhwere else. The template rules also specify that only a free-use image can be used in the box. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

OK. I saw the edit summary, but it just said that the image was a violation of the policy; it didn't say why. Thanks for the explanation. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another genre troll?

check this out Enigma ^message 23:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Compiling a list here guys. Utan Vax (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How is what I'm doing any different that the other user in the argument? I just mathematically happened to get in trouble because I kept changing his errors. I didn't "troll" anything. It's not very "civil" to throw me on your blacklist.-MetalKommandant (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You weren't thrown. You walk into it all on your own. When 1 editor (you) reverts the edits of many... you are a pov pusher who is ignoring consensus. Of all the edits you've made to Wikipedia.... 90% have been reverted. That's usually a sign to step back and re-think your erroneous thought plan. You don't appear to have any knowledge of the subjects you are editing. Perhaps when the teacher gives you your morning recess you should spend your time doing some research rather than going out to the playground and climbing on the monkey bars. And if you require any help understanding Wikipedia policy let me know and I will ask a patient/motherly editor to assist you. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

But I was changing it back to the consensus, what had been there before. This was something new that was thrown in without any basis at all. Yes, I was mathematically at fault because I went past the edit number, alright? I'm just reflecting what the information in those articles says about the album or band, which are the genres which were up there before. I have the knowledge of the material I'm putting in, it's right there in the article that I'm using for basis.

You're telling me that I don't have information, alright? Where is his? All of the original genre additions that were made were all at once with no comment on the history about why this being put in, where is the verification. Yes, I'm not most sensible person in the world, condescend me like a little kid all you want, but unless you look at what I'm seeing on these articles, what this user is putting in does not match what the page says about it... -MetalKommandant (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

^^These are civil posts right above me. I'm trying to do this your way to help you understand; it's what you suggested. "Civility." "No personal attacks." I'm telling the truth here. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question... what are you trying to have a conversation with yourself on other talk pages... using profanity/personal attacks/whiny crybaby/I don't care about consensus posts? The Real Libs-speak politely 02:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

So... where are the citations for the information I'm trying to rightfully take down. You're still being biased. "Whining." I think you're whining about the "personal attacks" and "profanity." Whoop-de-doo. People are profane in life, that's pretty basic if you ever go outside. To me, it sounds like you're whining because I'm challenging your misusage of power.

But, anyhow, if you don't follow consensus, and you don't have citations on these pages on the Megadeth articles, where is your justification for saying that the whole band and every album but "Risk" is hard rock? That's what I'm asking. You're not being very neutral in this argument; stop dodging my main points and address them, please. -MetalKommandant (talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't citations... its a majority of editors doing the same edits or agreeing to the same edit content. You are one person who iis using numerous sockpuppets to try and push your POV. But its still just you... one person...no matter how many bogus accounts you create or how many IPs you try and use. But every time you try an edit... it gets reverted by someone else... always someone different. Sometimes its an American, sometimes it's a Canadian, sometimes its someone from England, someone from New Zealand, someone from Australia, someone from Wales... etc. DNS searches don't lie. They pinpoint exactly where these edits come from. You, 1 person, are reverted by many. That is consensus on Wikipedia. And, unfortunately for you, it means you lose. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, forget consensus then, since I see we're changing the rules again. What about a citation. Where's that at? I'm still not seeing a citation and a reliable source to go to where it says "hard rock" on these pages. There isn't one or any on the pages that were vandalized by this unsupportable addition. I've seen on the Death Magnetic pages that you actually support your argument very well... you're not doing that here, you're just giving me the finger and going on your merry way.-MetalKommandant (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A citation isn't needed because consensus wins on Wikipedia. And the pages don't appear to be vandalised. An opinion that is different from your personal opinion isn't vandalism. Read WP:VAN. Adding hard rock to Megadeth page isn't stretching any truths as it pretty much describes a large bulk of their output over the past 16 years. So adding it isn't vandalism. If someone were to add opera or bluegrass... that would be vandalism. There is a large edit count in support of that particular genre being added to those pages. So a consensus has been set by an overwhelming edit history. And going against consensus is classed as destructive editing and is treated the same as vandalism... go against consensus and you will still be blocked. Creating sockpuppets to try and create a false consensus is also treated as vandalism and will result in you being blocked and all your sockpuppet acounts being blocked as well. If you found 6 or 8 citations from sources that meet the strict criteria of WP:RS (and websites are the last place to look) that specifically said "Megadeth are not a hard rock band"... in those exact words... then you could put an argument forth because you would have the refs to back it up But, again, those refs have to be from reliable sources not web based sources and they have to number in the many to outweigh the consensus. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"Risk was both a critical and commercial failure, and led to a backlash from many longtime fans. Although recent Megadeth albums had incorporated mainstream rock elements alongside a more traditional heavy metal sound, Risk was virtually devoid of metal, featuring instead dance, electronica, and disco influences." (from the Megadeth page) If we're going to say they're hard rock, then there's going to need to be an overhaul of the actual articles here. "Traditional heavy metal" is not hard rock. If so, then somebody should go to the pages like Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath, and Judas Priest and add hard rock to every album. Risk was the only commerical rock album, and it even says that on the pages. Countdown through Cryptic was traditional, slow-downed metal, it says that among the articles, and on The World Needs a Hero (as well as all post-Risk albums) it says that the album was more of a return to the regular style of Megadeth, hence, thrash and heavy metal. My proof is right here on this site. One conceptual album is not "the bulk of their output." If you're going to label the more mainstream albums of Megadeth as hard rock, then Metallica (album), St. Anger, and Death Magentic will need those tabs as well for your horrible consistency... If United Abominations is "hard rock" and Death Magnetic doesn't have that on it's page, then you need to clean out your ears.

"Destructive editing." I'm just reflecting what it says on the Megadeth's articles. To someone trying to research the band, they will think that every Megadeth album in the past 16 years has the same type of music as Risk did. That's false. Very false. There is a big difference between "Ashes In Your Mouth" and "Wanderlust", as well as "Return to Hangar" and "I'll Be There", for example.-MetalKommandant (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion/consensus for Iron Maiden, Black Sabbath and Judas Priest was that it 'could' be there but the preferred choice was to leave it out. We discussed that 3 years ago. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Check on possible NN bands

Can you have a check on these bands?

• Cryptic Fate
• Powersurge (band)

A quick look on those pages made me feel that they could be possibly NN. There maybe tons of bands like these in India which are not mentioned on the thrash list. Cheers! Welt^anschaunng 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic Fate was already moninated for AfD and the result was keep.(for some reason?). Powersurge was an article created by GlassCobra... who is an Administrator. Without digging into it too deep I would hope that, of anyone here, an administrator was know what an NN is :D. And my AGF is that he does. I don't see anything particularly notable. But who am I? You could prod it just to see if anyone bites. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The version of Powersurge that I created seemed pretty notable to me, but feel free to take it to AfD. When you saw it, Weltanschaunng, the article had been hijacked by an IP editor to feature a Bangladeshi band with the same name. I have reverted the changes and created an article for that band at Powersurge (Bangladeshi band). Please feel free to take that one to AfD as well if deemed necessary. GlassCobra 19:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't really look at the page... just the origin and figured that it was a keeper. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I am just as subject to the rules as anyone else, of course. Truth be told, I created both those articles as results of article hijacks; the Bangladeshi band I already spoke of, but the American Powersurge band was created from a hijack of the main Powersurge article. If you or Weltanschaunng feel that either of them are non-notable, please do take them to AfD. No hard feelings, I promise. GlassCobra 19:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stratovarius

Hi there Wiki links, I reviewed the guidelines at WP:DATE that you used in modifying Stratovarius. Please be aware that other editors have questioned the usage of non-linked dates, so you might want to spend less time enforcing that particular guideline until that's all settled out. I'm going to follow my own advice and not go out of my way to link them when editing articles for the moment. Cheers! --otherlleft (talk) 14:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Beyond WP:DATE... music related pages lean heavily on the the "do not link years lacking specific dates." A good practice to follow in order to keep things consistent. I predict that, if we follow these simple guidelines we will eventually have them all looking good around... say.... hmmm... '20never' :-)... but at least we tried. :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 16:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

David Knopfler

Would you please refrain from reverting and therefore removing referenced text. You have previously edit warred on this article/point and you had no basis for these edits then either as there is already a reference in place, which you repeatedly choose to ignore. Your reasoning being "Knopfler is born in Scotland. Therefore he is Scottish. Pretty simple" is complete incorrect, as per the reference in place.

92.12.207.220 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC) No, I am right and you are wrong. I am always right. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've stuck my oar in and kept it to the known facts - he was born in Scotland and self-identifies as "English".--Alf ^melmac 17:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Alf wanders off muttering about how attachment based all this identification of the self by name, country and all is and hopes it won't be a hindrance to their paths to enlightenment.

Are you English or British? :D The Real Libs-speak politely 17:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I deny everything. My passport says I'm British - I was born in England though I (like a lot) care to distance myself from attaching the nationality to England or Britain whenever possible. I sometimes have difficulty believing this is my home planet, but that's for another day...--Alf ^melmac 18:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Take a look

Take a look at user east718's talk page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you always trying to get me blocked? --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be doing that on your own without anyone's help. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:51, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude your goin around on different pages and saying i have sockpuppets and your trying to get people to block me. And i was right about the who project you even agreed "The project is active again", it was unactive when i made it into a taskforce. Another question why, you did't cear about that project before i came along. This goes to show that your trying to make problems for me. So stop. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I never join any projects officially. Everyone knows I support them though thats why so many people ask me for advice when it comes to them. But I do have a certain fondness for the TW project (it was my idea) and since other editors want to preserve it I might as well clan up to it. Makes sense seeing as how I was the one who recommended to the user who created it... to go ahead and create it in the first place. A year later I had that same user's IP blocked after he pissed me off by edit warring. But it was still a good idea. There are a couple of admins who are active on articles related to it. But they've never actually joined the project. That's just how some projects work. Unilateral dissolution of anything on Wikipedia without discussion or consensus is never the way. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Dude it was marked inactive, thats why i did what i did. But not a big deal anyway. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Marked inactive is one thing. But when that occurs whoever tagged it should have went around to all the project members and told them of the tag. Which didn't happen. There are other projects with members who are fiercely editing at the articles tagged by their project.... but never ever look at the actual project page itself. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

See now i get it, this is much more productive. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sirblew (talk · contribs) and Death Magnetic

I've blocked him for violating the 3RR rule and edit warring for 48 hours. I believe such is an automatic response for simple 3RR violation. Thanks for your assistance. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Grace Under Pressure

What was wrong with the Grace Under Pressure edits. They had references.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Distructive edits rather than constructive edits. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think they were destructive. The edits were accurate and were properly cited. (At least I think so).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh??? You tampered with the Allmusic link, you vandalised the review template you violated WP:NPOV, you ignored WP:MOS, You added false information(vandalism) by changeing the correct "C-clamp" to the incorrect "vice grip" do you even know what either of those 2 terms mean? You added an entire cruft/original research/copyvio paragraph using a fansite as a source (read WP:V/WP:RS. Shall I go on listing the rules and policies all you edits ignore? I thought it was funny when you created your RedPenofDicks sockpuppet account. But your attempt at real editing is not funny and 95% of them have to be reverted. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What in the blue blazes are you talking about?!?!?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice

There is a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wiki_libs. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Humorous. I will admit to be wrong on one thing and I do apologise for one factual exaggeration... it's not really 95%.... it's only 70%(approx.). I've been saying it for 4 years/50000+ edits... RCUs are a pain in the a**. Some accounts are so abusive that they require the pain... and then there are those that can just be ignored. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: FYI

I have no problems with the edit warring with User:Be Black Hole Sun, so I can not join this discussion (I think). Sorry. My problem is that it is adding the template rock music in articles of heavy metal bands (mainly those which gained featured status). Cannibaloki 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that. There are many users of the WP:METAL crew who are constantly removing his template due to the overkill factor. He has also templated (numerous times bordering on edit warring) many of the pages covered by the Wiki-alternative rock Project. Again... most of his work has been reverted by members of that project. Whether your opinion is positive pr negative it doesn't matter. That is what the admins involved need to know. Does the heaps of negative outweigh the bounds of positive. Lots of editors with an abundance of positive edits have still been blocked because the good did not outweigh the bad. The important thing is that all the sides are heard. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Falsifier guy that you talk about

You know that guy that keeps on making IPs usd for vandalism? Could I help as well? At present, I feel like reverting vandals. Just so you know who I am, this guy who is also me forgot the dang password, so I had to replace it with the new RoryReloaded.

So, can I help? RoryReloaded (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Come join R.E.V.E.R.T

Come join my new organization of anti-vandals - Rancid Editing Vandals Eating the Reverter's Talc. Where we patrol the recent changes in all directions and revert any bad things.

So come, Come, COME! RoryReloaded (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

re:earlier nn

Actually Powersurge (band) may be notable. Someone had incorrectly added them to the thrash metal list, that too under Bangladesh. Forgot to check, oops! Welt^anschaunng 17:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as Cryptic Fate is concerned, I did this. WP:BOLD eh! Welt^anschaunng 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

...

i just realized that and had reverted to the correct genre in my most recent edit. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be back from Munich in about 12 hours! I sat next to a German on the way, he cured my anxiety quite well. He was a computer physicist studying in Oxford... I kept him talking the whole time to keep me distracted. But, unfortunately, I didn't really understand so well when he began explaining quantum physics and quantum computing. Catch you soon! Hope your camping went well! 88.217.1.92 (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Eric Burdon Bootleg discography

You can delete it, really is a useless page. I fully agree with you. Cannibaloki 13:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Munchen

Hey! It was alright thanks :-) For the most part it was incredibly crowded with drunk Germans... Some stupid people even brought their babies in prams. Idiots! Had a few masses over the week, it was too strong for me and too bitter. I ain't no Canuck or Gerry ;-) - One evening on the train home I was with the Missus and her American friend. The train was packed with football fans because of this big game going on and this drunk German guy heard me speaking and he said: "You England?" - Me: "Ja." - "England schizer!" - And at that point I was slightly tipsy so I didn't really want to get into a fight with a drunk German football hooligan who was bad-mouthing the Motherland, so I just said: "Sehr gut!" and shook his hand. But, all in all, I'd recommend it for you next year. Just get in the tents before 11 am if you want a good seat; they fill up real quick. How are you? How's things your side of the Atlantic? Tally ho! Utan Vax (talk) 00:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You're supposed to just holler "Treaty of Verseilles!!!" and then make the "got you under my thumb" gesture. :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 01:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: IP VANDAL

I'll take care of the vandal on Alf's page. Rory (talk) 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Go for it! The Real Libs-speak politely 02:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rory want another project. Basically you can rv just about every edit Angry Shoplifter (talk · contribs) does until he can prove that he has tried to read and understand all of WIki's policies and style rules. Right now.... he is a long way out and all of his edits are more destructive rather than constructive. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You've beaten me though. How 'bout you block him? Rory (talk) 02:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rv'ing underway. Rory (talk) 07:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. Anything else? Dr. Robinson (talk) 07:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Angry Shoplifter has been notified that he can file me on ANI if I'm being stupid. Dr. Robinson (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Alfie (talk|contribs) has lost the crayons

When Alf gets up and figures out that his crayons are gone, could you change your username sig. to Dr. Libs? I'm changing mine now. Rory (talk) 07:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I like my Real Libsy sig :) The Real Libs-speak politely 10:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Dr. Robinson (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a reminder...

...could you please post your replies to my talk? Really. Any medical conditions - 'cause Dr. Robinson's here Dr. Robinson (talk) 07:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I FOllow Alfs rule of chat. If you post to me here... I will reply here, just to keep the conversation from being broken up into chunks. If I come back to this conversation later and all I see is replies to my posts... but my posts aren't here... my old and feeble memory won'y know what the h*ck was being said. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh... I was just thinking if I could keep track... I stink with the watchlist. Off to revert. See ya! Dr. Robinson (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: I am not a project

Remember how you said up here "Hey Rory, want another project" on rv'ing Angry Shoplifter? And then I said: "Can I have another project?" I meant another project on vandals! Just so you know, I am NOT an admin, so I can't block. Sorry for the misunderstanding. :) Dr. Robinson (talk) 20:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

But remember... Angry Shapeshifter isn't a vandal. Just young and confused about protocol and policy. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Can I have somehing else to do? 'Cause I'm BORED. Dr. Robinson (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Rory, download WP:HUGGLE, or go to WP:BACKLOG. There's plenty to do :-) Utan Vax (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Angry Shoplifter attacks

A.S is attacking us - help! Dr. Robinson (talk) 09:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about him. He's just a pov troll who doesn't understand policy and he is a sockpuppeteer to boot. He will be blocked soon and then we won't have to think about him anymore. He is just a really bad editor who doesn;t understand what an encyclopedia is. They have covered that in his "special needs" class yet. There are thousands of editors who are just as bad as him. Thousands who are even worse. Just try your best and don't give up. Good editors don't give up. Eventually trolls just get bored and go away. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to get back to you so much later

I wouldn't say I'm gone "forever." We'll see what happens. I'm honored Pat would consider me for admin at all and it's nice to hear you speaking so civilly to me for once, though this could be all sarcasm on your part. But in any case, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. It would seem we are both deletionists. Never knew that before. But it makes sense. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Hã?

Explain this better, how? Cannibaloki 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Now, only users actually able to write an article will stay on Wikipedia. Currently, most users are only changing the genre of bands/albums, and this is a suck. =D Cannibaloki 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Music genre....

Hey, just wondering, I did check out the discussion in Wikiproject:music, one thing I didn't quite catch, is the deletion of genre from the infobox gonna apply to all music related articles (albums, songs, etc...), or is this just gonna apply to artists themselves?...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I make a whole ton of edits on music pages everyday (currently I've been working on eliminating red links), but yeah, I'll go around deleting genres ASAP...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

thanks, and I had absolutely no idea he was undoing my red link deletion...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 01:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Slow down...

The field has been removed from the infobox, but discussion is still going. There's no need to rush to remove stuff, unless you're volunteering to revert all your edits should consensus go to re-adding the genre field. Giggy (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I won't have to revert anything. Wikipedia editors won't be stupid enough to back-peddle on such an excellent and overdue idea. While a small minority are wasting their time whining and wheel spinning over a dead issue. There are lots of editors "getting things done". The Real Libs-speak politely 13:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh well done, you managed to attack an entire cohort of editors in two sentences. Kudos.

Seriously, slow it down a bit. There's no hurry and no harm done in leaving the stuff in; if anything what you're doing is harming the place by making edits that don't change the article content at all. Now that we are safe from edit warriors (apparently) you're better off going and doing he "actual editing" that the genre in the infobox was preventing you from completing. Giggy (talk) 13:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

An entire cohort of 3? cleanup first... then back to editing. Curious though. There are at least 2 dozen editors diligently rm'ing the POV field from hundreds of boxes as we speak. Why are you talking to me directly and no one else? The Real Libs-speak politely 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking to you directly because you're the loudest of the bunch and the first I noticed wasting their time doing something useless for science. As I said, please find something more productive to do than brandy about accusations of POV, whining, and "zomg he's evil because he disagreed with me". Giggy (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I've always been the loudest of the bunch. But it pays off occasionally. No one is evil because they disagree with me. They're just wrong. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record... this is also me:

• 156.34.142.158, 156.34.208.112, 156.34.208.163, 156.34.208.166, 156.34.208.171, 156.34.208.218, 156.34.208.227, 156.34.208.42, 156.34.208.47, 156.34.208.51, 156.34.208.95, 156.34.209.108, 156.34.209.124, 156.34.209.136, 156.34.209.197, 156.34.209.209, 156.34.209.217, 156.34.209.221, 156.34.209.23, 156.34.209.240, 156.34.209.243, 156.34.209.34, 156.34.209.39, 156.34.209.52, 156.34.210.119, 156.34.210.147, 156.34.210.158, 156.34.210.185, 156.34.210.243, 156.34.210.252, 156.34.210.255, 156.34.210.28, 156.34.210.47, 156.34.210.48, 156.34.210.6, 156.34.210.66, 156.34.211.13, 156.34.211.133, 156.34.211.166, 156.34.211.18, 156.34.211.181, 156.34.211.193, 156.34.211.215, 156.34.211.237, 156.34.211.242, 156.34.211.41, 156.34.211.58, 156.34.211.60, 156.34.211.93, 156.34.212.136, 156.34.212.143, 156.34.212.184, 156.34.212.230, 156.34.212.57, 156.34.212.88, 156.34.212.94, 156.34.213.102, 156.34.213.120, 156.34.213.146, 156.34.213.161, 156.34.213.177, 156.34.213.204, 156.34.213.216, 156.34.213.235, 156.34.213.29, 156.34.213.34, 156.34.213.35, 156.34.213.52, 156.34.213.97, 156.34.214.105, 156.34.214.115, 156.34.214.123, 156.34.214.159, 156.34.214.181, 156.34.214.205, 156.34.214.237, 156.34.214.29, 156.34.214.68, 156.34.214.76, 156.34.215.109, 156.34.215.110, 156.34.215.122, 156.34.215.139, 156.34.215.179, 156.34.215.188, 156.34.215.201, 156.34.215.210, 156.34.215.213, 156.34.215.218, 156.34.215.223, 156.34.215.31, 156.34.215.43, 156.34.215.45, 156.34.215.47, 156.34.215.61, 156.34.216.110, 156.34.216.115, 156.34.216.119, 156.34.216.130, 156.34.216.139, 156.34.216.15, 156.34.216.159, 156.34.216.162, 156.34.216.200, 156.34.216.202, 156.34.216.210, 156.34.216.32, 156.34.216.38, 156.34.216.45, 156.34.216.55, 156.34.216.68, 156.34.216.90, 156.34.217.110, 156.34.217.117, 156.34.217.154, 156.34.217.192, 156.34.217.216, 156.34.217.221, 156.34.217.48, 156.34.217.80, 156.34.217.92, 156.34.218.130, 156.34.218.194, 156.34.218.199, 156.34.218.212, 156.34.218.243, 156.34.218.248, 156.34.218.39, 156.34.218.49, 156.34.218.58, 156.34.218.69, 156.34.218.74, 156.34.219.11, 156.34.219.119, 156.34.219.132, 156.34.219.175, 156.34.219.191, 156.34.219.206, 156.34.219.214, 156.34.219.217, 156.34.219.222, 156.34.219.240, 156.34.219.247, 156.34.219.252, 156.34.219.32, 156.34.219.50, 156.34.219.85, 156.34.219.89, 156.34.219.91, 156.34.220.123, 156.34.220.124, 156.34.220.13, 156.34.220.142, 156.34.220.145, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.210, 156.34.220.222, 156.34.220.50, 156.34.220.66, 156.34.221.111, 156.34.221.115, 156.34.221.137, 156.34.221.149, 156.34.221.170, 156.34.221.175, 156.34.221.214, 156.34.221.221, 156.34.221.249, 156.34.221.252, 156.34.221.29, 156.34.221.31, 156.34.221.39, 156.34.221.76, 156.34.221.89, 156.34.221.91, 156.34.221.99, 156.34.222.110, 156.34.222.121, 156.34.222.133, 156.34.222.140, 156.34.222.2, 156.34.222.204, 156.34.222.210, 156.34.222.231, 156.34.222.247, 156.34.222.38, 156.34.222.50, 156.34.222.9, 156.34.223.115, 156.34.223.124, 156.34.223.144, 156.34.223.171, 156.34.223.178, 156.34.223.191, 156.34.223.204, 156.34.223.225, 156.34.223.236, 156.34.223.238, 156.34.223.26, 156.34.223.41, 156.34.224.105, 156.34.224.2, 156.34.224.83, 156.34.225.235, 156.34.225.50, 156.34.225.75, 156.34.225.77, 156.34.226.159, 156.34.226.160, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.252, 156.34.226.76, 156.34.226.99, 156.34.227.11, 156.34.227.140, 156.34.227.195, 156.34.228.106, 156.34.228.140, 156.34.228.22, 156.34.228.60, 156.34.228.63, 156.34.228.95, 156.34.229.100, 156.34.229.239, 156.34.230.106, 156.34.230.166, 156.34.230.187, 156.34.230.78, 156.34.230.90, 156.34.231.155, 156.34.231.30, 156.34.231.56, 156.34.231.74, 156.34.232.128, 156.34.232.134, 156.34.232.93, 156.34.233.153, 156.34.233.42, 156.34.233.79, 156.34.234.163, 156.34.234.7, 156.34.235.195, 156.34.235.217, 156.34.235.222, 156.34.235.69, 156.34.235.98, 156.34.236.16, 156.34.236.193, 156.34.236.222, 156.34.236.3, 156.34.236.46, 156.34.236.51, 156.34.237.192, 156.34.237.194, 156.34.237.214, 156.34.238.173, 156.34.238.179, 156.34.238.192, 156.34.238.220, 156.34.239.151, 156.34.239.197, 156.34.239.61, 156.34.252.246

I am a dedicated editor and have earned my Wiki-arrogance-shoulder-chip many times over. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, bbbbiiigggg proxy. Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Angry Shoplifter - the sockpuppeter

Turns out... --Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 04:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to give the good news! Grr! Yeah... I discovered it after this. I went straight to an admin and then submitted an SSP report here. So yeah... I am pretty good at my job... kudos to me. Utan Vax (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You're hilarious... I slipped up into his talk page and saw a big tag saying "You have been blocked indef for sockpuppetering and vandalism" with a sockpuppet with a big X. Funny stuff... Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 20:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Now THAT was certainly worth coming down out of the mountains for :D . Comepletely blind-sided me. I didn't have them 2 on my radar at all :D . And now he's drafting up a jimmy letter that no one will ever see??? Weirdo! Jurn-asshole-ist can draft him into his army of retards over at the WPP:MUSIC circus. He probably has other socks that just haven't come out of the drawer yet. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, especially the BIG sockpuppet thing that comes up... hilarious... :) Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Well hello there Wiki Librarian! It is definitely my pleasure to meet you! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar! :) Soliloquial^talk 21:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Russian Airplay

Hahaha!!! I also have this suspicion, see here. Cannibaloki 14:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey!, go to User talk:Russian Airplay (again). =P Cannibaloki 17:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

AC/DC

Hello, I've been having a problem or two with an IP editor who keeps adding unsourced info to the personnel sections of AC/DC album articles, such as Malcolm Young playing bass on Let There Be Rock (Australian album) etc. He/she is doing it rather a lot and the messages I've placed on his/her various IP talk pages are being ignored. I'm reverting to the information as stated on the albums as to who plays what, but he/she is very persistent. What do you think I should do? Thanks :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I will keep an eye out with you. Without looking too deep into it... if you say the edits need rv'd... then rv'd they will be. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Genres

They haven't been removed form the infobox, just made invsiible. If we decide to bring them back, we'd be kind of screwed if they weren't there. Titan50 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Wikipedia won't do anything as retarded as bringing back that stupid/useless field which only attracts the lowest common denominator of edit warrior or falsifier troll. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

That may be, but keep them so people can still look at the genres if they wish. This was only to disencourage edit wars, which it has. Titan50 (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

They were removed to end the edit wars and take away the warrior magnet. The only people who care to keep the stupid field are the users who edit war over them all the time. The majority vote is still to keep them out of Wikipedia because all the editors with common sense and reason have prevailed in this improvement drive. The edit warriors who are using sockpuppets to try and sway the consensus away from the "delete" majority will eventually get bored and, hopefully, leave Wikipedia.(if they aren't all blocked for sockpuppetry first... that investigation is ongoing). The Real Libs-speak politely 17:51, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

So what if someone wants to look the genres up with ease? Titan50 (talk) 10:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

This guy...

is apparently free from blockage and can do whatever. Help me! :D Rory the vandal-fighter (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: assistance

Yep, sure thing. Btw, can you look at this, please? Wiki syntax confuses me. :-S — Travelling Tragition ^(Talk) 18:59, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning

AGF Libsey! :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:44, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh you know I have oodles of AGF for editors who aren't retarded or just complete f*cking a**holes. :-D What was the scourge of all quality on Wiki again???... besides inclusionists?... oh yeah.... people who post their personal opinions as fact no matter how completely stupid and wrong they are. :D The Real Libs-speak politely 12:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Thanks for the back-up. If I had caught an IP making those edits I would've given them a full bore vandalism warning and had an admin friend block them. He may as well have been adding black metal to the article... it would've been just as accurate :-D . Things were so much better when the genre field was removed. Wesley Dodds is supposed to be working on a guideline to help control dumbass edits (like adding speed metal to hard rock pages). But I have read what he has done so far and it is pretty much useless. So we are stuck with the stupid field... and it will have rules that no one will ever follow... just what Wiki needs. Sorry I haven't been more support witht hose AC/DC articles. I have had personal issues pop up so my Wiki-time has been sporadic. I will try and monitor my watchlist closely when I am around though. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 12:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem :o) I saw the guy leave those stupid templates on your page so I had to be all nosey and see what all the fuss was about. When I saw his edits I think I rolled my eyes so hard it bent the space-time continuum... I'm not a fan of the genre field either, it's just a playground for time-wasters, but as you say I think we're stuck with it. No problem about the AC/DC articles, I think that editor has basically given up, for now at least - and I got ruthless with a lot of the AC/DC song articles that needed to be changed into redirects, which cut out a lot of the hard work of reverting the rubbish! All the best, cheers Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You can bet you won't get any complaint from me about WP:SONG/notability re-directs. That is something that could be done to literally thousands of nn song articles. Some people are possessive of them so it can be touchy. I AfD/re-directed a bunch of Megadeth album cuts that didn't deserve their own page. I have always contemplated forging into Led Zeppelin territory :-D. LZ didn't release many singles. But did have charting hits. And, of course, some tracks are notable because of their, ahem, *cough* supposed plagiarism *cough* thingy :-D. But most are just bunk. To make it worse... someone created album navboxes for each/every LZ album page. And all they do is link to the songs... which are already linked in the articles themselves. Stupid/useless overkill. Edlemand and Meg X and a few others patrol the LZ pages. I respect them as editors and wouldn't want to stomp on any toes. It would definitely be something I would discuss at their project page first. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree. I particularly dislike the horrible attempts that people make to explain a song's meaning - "This song is about..." aaarrgghh, I can't stand it. But it's everywhere - someone likes a song and decides it needs its own article on Wikipedia, regardless of how insignificant it all is. But Led Zeppelin / plagiarism? I'm shocked! Haha.. LZ are one of so many bands afflicted in this way, as you say. The Beatles are another one.. I don't know if I'd have the stones to go and start turning Beatles songs into redirects, but surely they're not ALL so notable? Anyway, I'll stick to AC/DC for now! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Utan Vax/Genre troll IPs

I really consider being included as "musically-impaired" an insult, since I know a lot about music. I'd really appreciate if you could come to an agreement to get me off the list (I won't violate WP:NPOV anymore for starters). FMAFan1990 (talk) 00:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If I receive a sincere apology for being issued false warnings and if you truly, honestly, sincerely promise to never ever ever add foolish fairy-tale nonsense to any more Wikipedia music articles... then I will gladly AGF that have reformed and I will remove you from the troll list. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I also apologize for the false warnings, and any of my opinions will be strictly on websites that I run (and not here). FMAFan1990 (talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You were right, Wiki libs. :) Enigma ^message 03:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering yourself erudite about music is incredibly subjective and just makes you seem big-headed. It's really not a good trait to have. I'm knowledgeable about the physical properties of butter, but do you see me stating that a lot on Wikipedia? On Wiki, it's not what you know, it's what you can source, and you violated WP:NPOV big time. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

AAAAAAASSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS again:

Mr.IP's edit summary + ASSSSSEEEESSSSS summary. We win AGAIN. What's that? Like 3-0 now? Coupled with all the things I showed Rlevse (sp) I think that's more than enough. Score again for the C- Quietens down :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nobodies

Sorry for the delay; been real busy. I have AfD'd the Prism guy and iced the other one that was formatted horribly. Btw, next time you have 10-15 minutes, could you proof-read my new book? You don't have to, only when you're not busy ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's named after my little piece of Sweden. But sure, it'll be in the hospital waiting for you :-) - Or at home probably. Give my best to you-know-who :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Wiki libs. You have new messages at Elizabeth Bathory's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For you: A BARNSTAR!

		The Special Barnstar
		I've Seen you everywhere on wikipedia. You're reverting vandalism, fixing things, all sorts of stuff. Consider yourself a special wikipedian with this. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Slipknot

I'm confused as to you edit to Slipknot (album). The genre has been discussed, or atleast had sources presented, on the talk page. As nobody has presented reliable sources to the contrary, it should read as is. I have reverted your edits, the genre should not be changed unless consensus is reached on the talk page first. If you have any questions, let me know. Blackngold29 01:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks! Blackngold29 02:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Get on MSN please if you can

Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Death Magnetic page...

There appears to be another ridiculous edit war goin on over there, not quite sure how to stop it. It's all about the chart positions table/information. It's pretty annoying, Im still newish here, so I figured you'd be able to help stop it...Arch stanton1138 (talk) 00:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No clue what's going on that page, i had it on my watchlist for a while, but took it off after it got to be too much to handle. Maybe send in a request for page protection? - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 02:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've already done it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked both of them. BBHS appears to be not so very bright when it comes to being inconspicuous :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

why ==

a message from Saudi Arabia,. why did you remove the text from the rush disco. --Lord of War 3 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Since when did Saudi Arabia move to Finland? Your text was full of inaccuracies. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The information came from the page History of Rush, oh and your right i'm not arabian but im 中文的. --Lord of War 3 (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Then you should have just used the lead from the Rush page? How do you represent the English letters b h s in Chinois? The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll do that. B= 乙, S= 语 and h=我们没有一个 H 在中国

. Something else --Lord of War 3 (talk) 14:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I was just kidding with you, we don't have a h as you know it in chinese, we don't have a direct translation for h as we have for b and s. --Lord of War 3 (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Buckethead task force?

Hi! I just started a Buckethead task force and would like to invite you to join. Say Headcheese! --hexaChord² 23:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I tend to watch all music related projects without "clanning up" officially to them all. I will watch your task force talk page and try and support when I can. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Genre in the Infobox

I would prefer the entire "genre" line in the Infobox be removed if push comes to shove. I do not like the way the current debate it heading. It's essentially the opinions of two editors who arent involved in the Led Zeppelin project dictating what can and can't be put it. Alarmingly neither the project nor article page was given any notice that a policy change was being implemented, yet the article page was the first one changed. That's not the way wikipedia works. I note you removed the genre line a number of times, perhaps it would be better to leave it out. MegX (talk) 04:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Be Black Hole Sun

You might want to check through this socks edits. — Realist² 15:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Hope everything gets fixed. I really dislike sock puppeting trolls. — Realist² 16:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletions and tags; article revisions are not possible without specific explanations.

Regarding article for "Rat Skates", the image that you have deleted is cleared and permissible through Wiki-Commons and used for the same informational manner as all other informational biographies and articles of public figures on Wikipedia. The added tags of Fansite, Neutrality and Tone need your specific explantions that cite specific copy within the article so these issues may be addressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicCrawler (talk • contribs) 13:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Rat Skates- article revised

Pat

Thank you for your explanation regarding the neutrality, tone, and fansite tags of this article

We (the cumulative authors) have re-worked this entire article, focusing on removing any possible quantitative, bias, or un-necessary adjectives in this article, doing as best as possible to strip averything away except complete, citable, factual, relevant information, according to Wikipedia's best article practices.

The attached image has also been cleared for use through wiki Commons

Thank You for you help in improving this article for Wikipedia.

Best Wishes, "MusicCrawler" ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by MusicCrawler (talk • contribs) 19:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Jazzmaster page

You revert my reference to the bridge, yet where are the references to the buzzstop, and tune-o-matic?

Following your logic, the whole modifications section should be taken out.

I added it as it is a notable modification, and certainly has enough quotes, notes, and photos right here. www.masterybridge.com - I did not add a link to the site, so I'm curious where the charge of advertising comes in - again, the buzzstop is a product, and so is the tune-o-matic. Should they come out as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.254.190.130 (talk) 18:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have determined you are correct, and have removed the offending text.

Robby Kreiger

Hello - I wondered why you removed my contribution about Kreiger's son and his musical activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeddyE (talk • contribs) 10:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

NN Trivia. If Kreiger's son is notable he can have an article of his own. He doesn't need free advertising in his fathers article. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what "NN Trivia" means but how about just noting that his son is also a musician? TeddyE (talk) 11:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:NN and WP:TRIVIA. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:Townshend

I'm hesitant to lock the page - yet. Once I've gotten a response from Wiki-is-truth then we'll see how this goes. If he continues to edit war then I'll lock. And thanks for the info! Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

ARollins

This guy never gives up. He's still removing a bunch of ex-members from the AC/DC template and I keep running into 3rr every time he comes on. Can we block him? Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :o) Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

INXS External links

You've deleted all but one of the INXS#External links, I was about to delete almost as many and provided a note at its talkpage citing WP:LINKS and WP:MUSTARD to warn users of the impeding deletion. I can understand WP:BOLD and thus your more prompt approach.

However the last two ELs should have been kept. In your edit summary for deletion of these two, you stated (broken link template). I've just tried both links and have had no trouble in getting to the sites indicated and so cannot understand in what way they are broken: I intend returning these two ELs and adding a new one to the article.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very strict on wp:el. No fansites or online webzines... fan clubs (even official ones).. nothing. Wikipedia is overloaded with that kind of crap. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

As indicated above I had no problem with almost all of your deletions. For the ones I do query see discussion at INXS talkpage.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Planned Aggression?

This seems planned by various IPs to destroy the list. Timely save by CircaFucix saved the day. Welt^anschaunng 06:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Classic rock

You may want to take a look at and/or modify what I've done just now. To be honest, it was triggered by noticing your edit just prior, re-instating "The Pusher" as a "key song"; this is clearly untrue as the main vocal thrust of the song is in violation of current community standards almost everywhere in the US. But the point is that everybody has an opinion about what is "key" and nobody has any actual facts. I just couldn't take it anymore. Thanks Jgm (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As to the Album-oriented rock article; I had never run across that one. Wow. Totally without references, yet the content is actually not too bad (and mostly accurate to my knowledge) until you get to the big section of lists at the end. Frankly I think they could all just go away without prejudice, but without any refs anywhere it would be tough to know when to stop. Jgm (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change

Hey Wiki Libs, I changed the name from Wikilibs90 to Wikix90. I wanted something with Wiki in it basically, which explains my chosen name. I liked yours, which was why I....collaborated from it. That's pretty much the rational for my views, I just wanted a name that pertained to being an editor on a Wiki of some sort. Thanks for the heads up. talk)

"Spirit in the Sky"

Huh??? Are you suggesting it may not have been the original version? I've added a reference but find it bizarre that you feel you need one for that. But the rest of the article does need a lot of improvement, I agree. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The article has 2 "trivia" sections. Needs some TLC trimming. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I notice I had a script glitch in undoing an edit previous to your which caused some confusion and I will apologise for that. You had already undone the edit and my undone. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

No probs. I've done some tidying - much more needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal

In disambiguating links to Heavy metal it has become clear to me that Heavy metal should redirect to Heavy metal music. You've reverted the previous redirects a couple times before. Please see Talk:Heavy_metal to discuss further. Thanks! --Faradayplank (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You missed the consensus on your "clear" though. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I did miss it. Thanks for the link to the Talk:Heavy_metal_music#Requested_move. I'll continue to help disambiguate the links to Heavy metal. --Faradayplank (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: List

That's great! T-things are pussies when it comes to fucking with Canuck-Docs! :-D My regards to the big man! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting heavy metal links

Why are you deleting all the links.

Yours sincerely, 2ndedition. 2ndedition (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Libsy. Any idea how to get the above link black listed? I must have reverted 20-25 edits just the past two days aswell. He keeps making new accounts though. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 16:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...

Why are you putting up messages stating I have added false information if I have done no such thing? It seems a little bit unusual... TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Actually, you are wrong. Bon Jovi are glam metal, which is what I have added. This is fact and NOT considered false information. Nice try. TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Taken from Wikipedia article Glam metal:

Glam metal (also known as pop metal) is a sub-genre of heavy metal music that arose in the late 1970s and early 1980s in the United States. It was a dominant genre in popular rock music throughout the 1980s and briefly in the early 1990s, combining elements of glam rock (mostly those related to band image) with heavy metal.

That is what Bon Jovi's first four records are. And if you go to the article Glam metal under "Second wave (1985-1991)", notice the sentences:

"By the mid-1980s, glam metal could be defined by two major divisions. On the mainstream side were bands such as Bon Jovi, whose 1986 album Slippery When Wet was a huge success at Top 40 radio and MTV, as well as the band Europe, whose single "The Final Countdown" hit number one in 26 countries; the bands in this style were and still are described as pop metal."

Sorry, nice try though.TheSickBehemoth (talk)TheSickBehemoth —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC).

Where does it say that?

And I don't see you as a valuable source either, declaring that glam metal is not a type of music. TheSickBehemoth (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)TheSickBehemoth

How is it would be the better question. If a supposed 'glam metal' band performed but you couldn't see them only hear them there would be no distinction between the true style of their music and hard rock. Motley Crue, Poison, Warrant... they are hard rock bands with make-up on. It's just a look. And Bon Jovi only had that look for a couple of videos. Stretched out over a near 30 year career... it = that they are just a hard rock band and any extra superfluity has no place here. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

List of heavy metal bands

Why do you feel it's important to have the List of heavy metal bands page with only the first bands who started the genre. This seems like it should be a much larger list in my opinion, see: List of punk bands, 0–K as an example. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal gets very hazy post 1979. Many heavy metal subgenres already have a list of their own. Many have already been AfD'd as useless because they could be easily replaced by a category. (even the list of punk bands could be replaced by a category) That's why the list has the format that it does right now. It is simply a bridge between the main heavy metal music article and the countless "list ofs" that come under it. It is meant as a helper resource for overflow content from the main genre page... not to be some sort of extensive list that ignores the sub-genres. If it were it would be useless (see category) or... it would make all the others useless. "List of X genres" should always look like the list of thrash metal bands page or else they risk being quickly AfD'd because they are unnecessary. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Gallactus

Why is this page being considered for deletion? It has many references. Also you didn't even notify me of this.. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The article subject fails Wikipedia policy for notability. It is a band that is a "never-was-never-will-be" bunch of nobodys. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

They have reviews from Roadrunner Records, Unrestrained Magazine and Herenb. That is pretty notable. Also they have been nominated for an East Coast Music Award. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) 03:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Prod

They said it's an action figure, and I said, 'So, you're gonna put a dick on it?' They said, 'No.' I said, 'Well, then it's not going to get much action then, is it?'. Wish to heavens I had his phraseology... --Alf ^melmac 13:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Happy First Day of Winter!

A stand of Pine trees beautifully coated in winter snow.

Wishing you a Merry Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Summer not Winter then I wish you a happy First Day of Summer 2008!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Winter}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a question

A spam filter doesn't let me pu the link, but:

photo.sing365.com/music/picture.nsf/Samson-photo/BA66427F492ADFE548256D9000124A82/$file/Samson.jpg

This picture, taken from the band's bio on that site, is everywhere around the web. It's the only picture that Dickinson has with the band Samson. I'm trying to imrpove his article, and I need this picture. How could I upload it to Wikipedia, or Commons? I mean, what license needs to be shown. Hope you can help me.  Rockk3r Spit it Out! 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There isn't one. It doesn't qualify as fair-use. It's just an internet pirated pic. Unless you know the person who took the original photo and can have them send an email to Wikipedia brass... it's a no-go. You have to wait for someone to upload a picture that they took themselves that they have legally released for Wikipedia to use. 75% of the pictures on Wiki are illegal. Eventually all will be deleted. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas to you, sir! Have a Happy New Year! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember half the shit that guy used to touch... Gimme a clue? :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:48, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You got it, Libsey. I have a stuffed nose and a fucking splitting headache. Was out on the razz till 4 am last night and I'm heavily paying for it. I'm starting to show my age :-D How's yours going? How's Pappa Libs? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, what wrong?

Why did you tell Sacrian that I was messing up with DABs again? I haven't done anything like that again ok? Also, don't call me "Maiden fanboy", then you sould be called "Metallica fangirl". You're going around pretending you're a good editor, but I've had some confrantations with you and I always get the blame. Be respectful please. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 01:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I was respectful the first time you started screwing around with the dab links. No second chances. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

But tell me what I did wrong. Because I still don't know what you're referring to. Rockk3r Spit it Out! 02:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Note left on Scarian's talk page

You can see it there.208.120.7.152 (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

New Years

Libs, I'm so sorry, man. Is he okay? I hope everything works out, buddy. He's still got plenty of fight left in him, if he's anything like you, that is ;-) - Just take it easy and stay positive. Best wishes from here over the pond from all our family to all of yours. Keep safe and have a great New Year (one more breath after the other makes it a great one). Take care. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year. I hope things get better for him Enigma ^message 20:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Libs

Hey man, how's it going? Haven't seen you around in a while; I hope everything is okay. How was your New Year och Christmas? I hope everything is okay with you-know-who. Our thoughts and prayers are with du och your familja :-) Take care and speak soon, Pat. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 06:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Happy New Year!! Pap's recovery is slow. He is getting some 'lost bits' back. But time will tell. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh that's great! That he's fighting back I mean. It's always heart warming :-) - I hope y'all are holding up well; keep warm because of the artic conditions :-D - Btw, I caught that IP a while ago ;-) - Getting slower, eh? (E-man pointed it out to me :-D - Remember that thing you said you'd never be in a million years on Wikipedia? Go take a look at that right now... ) Take care, man. Catch up soon: Promise. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 22:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Right on the button with that one, Libsey. CU also caught another sock in the process. :-D Wikipedia 15-0 BBHS. Good job! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Joe Satriani

I see that you reverted my addition of {{Guitar}} on this article. If you look at history you will see that I used the template to replace similar hard code that was already they. Also the same template is used on other guitarist articles, such as Eric Clapton. – ukexpat (talk) 22:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't be on the Clapton page either. Neither is specifically mentioned in the portal. Follows the navbox rule. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

AS/AOM

Re: New account guy - Got a CU run: Complete miss. To us that account looked pretty obviously socking, right? That new account is on the other side of the planet and unlikely to be using a proxy. Never mind. Most likely he's still socking somewhere though... he's persistent. Good job with the open eyes though, Libs :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland Issue 1 - January 22, 2009

You're reading the first issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to kill your canary. Maximum Bob is our first joint article, recently released to the public eye. Come on over and have a shout about what should follow. Choose from existing slunks or bring up some fresh meat. A research page has been installed for you, a pure wonderland of joy! Joke of the Day: Did you miss Armed With Sodas? NOTE: No rainforests have been harmed in the making of this nonsense.

Blank

I drew a blank on Atlanta... Who's the sock of...? I looked at AS/AOM again and I couldn't find an IP for them... and our Norwegian sock lives in Norway :-D - Which one of our buddies is it? (Surprisingly we've only had two big major sock friends...) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

They only seem to get access to it on the weekends? And its a public proxy. It is very AS-ish (Johan?) I know it is one of those trolls... just can't peg the post just yet. I will figure out eventually. Or at least my inner wikinoid will. :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 03:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to my skills: Edit summary comparison AS [6] and the IP [7]. Sock tip to any junior admins out there: - Look for unusual tells like non-standard spellings. Anyway, back to Libsey, it's not 100% obviously... either that CU was lying to me, or it's him, basically. Thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Can pretty much guarantee it because of the cat work (AS/AOM are cat. whores)... I need that IP though... Atlanta really rings a bell... any chance of finding it? I swear there was one... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Go to User:Utan Vax/Genre troll IPs, look at 72.X ... :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Atlanta

The nationalities thing is what I caught onto. Actually... what snagged my eyeballs tonight... was that every time the IP does anything it gets reverted by someone. When I dug deeper I noticed quite a few nationality edits in the origin fields of a few infoboxes that just smelled socky to me. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's him. Confirmed. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

From the moment I replied, it took us 28 minutes... gosh we're getting slow :-D - Sorry for all the orange bars, we need to have a place where we can discuss this stuff without me annoying you with leads :-D Good job on finding this guy! Barney coming your way! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sign off Pat. Thanks for your help! The Real Libs-speak politely 03:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Your warning at my page

Hi, could you please produce an evidence of me edit waring. I am quite familiar with what the 3-revert rule is; in fact, I believe you should invest your time in helping those who don't recognize the difference between reliable and unreliable sources, and one person who needs a rebuke is Andreas81 who continuously has been supporting sales-figures using unreliable sources. See WP:RSN --Harout72 (talk) 03:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look for free. But hold on a sec, no one edit, I need to write something else in the above section. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, yes, you have been edit warring. If Andreas finds out about the WP:3RRN board then an admin would probably block you both and I wouldn't recommend filing a report there either. Basically, just cut it out and discuss it. I'll have a word with the other guy. If you have any questions or need any help, please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 03:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is what you are referring to [8], his efforts have gone in vain as I have reverted his edits only twice [9], [10].--Harout72 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

+ 1 from yesterday. The 3 is just a suggestion. Your pattern of ownership on a few recent [ages in your edit history shows a common thread. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

NWOAHM

Thanks for undoing those forum-like provoking comments from the talkpage. But lets keep just that one - i answered it. Maybe it helps people to understand how funny they are :) Cheers--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 13:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Navlos has many IP meat puppets. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Classical Variations and Themes

I noticed you reverted an edit on Timo Tolkki's Classical Variations and Themes album page, which originally removed a zero-rated allmusic link. It is now back, but still with zero stars. I've been under the impression that any non-rated links should not be present at all, and thus the Reviews field left blank. Has the rule been changed recently, or might I be missing something here? Mac dreamstate (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Anything to add -

Here? Any input greatly appreciated; please feel free to remove/add absolutely anything. Thanks and take care! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 08:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't, off the top of my early morning/un-coffee'd head, add to what you have written. I have thought of nag popups and audio messaging before to try and promote better Wiki-understanding. I had not read anything about the 'approved edit' mechanism. I have 2 problems with it. A) It is an anti-anon mechanism which slaps "that anyone can edit" right in the face. and B) That part of the problem Wikipedia has is that a great number of "trusted users" on en-Wikipedia are complete and total assh*les who don't know sh*t from a shovel. HOw many edits does it take to become a trusted user??? Some brand new accounts jump right in with quality right off of the first edit. If their contributions get caught in a backlog (and there WILL DEFINITELY be a backlog) we will likely lose that good new editor forever. I like the idea of cutting the troll population down... but not at the expense of scaring valid editors away. I will re-read later, after several coffee and a visit to the hospital to see mon pere. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:24, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Can You...

Please stop undoing all of my (this and 82.10.246.117) edits under the presumption that I'm a different user known for vandalising, because I'm neither him or am I vandalising. Thanks. HeadlightMorning (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No thank you. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Libs, he ain't BBHS. It was a Brit IP. :-/ Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But you can still revert him if you see necessary though ;-) But see here; BBHS cannot even spell "care" correctly, let alone "nonsensical". Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 15:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Proxy-ing?? The Real Libs-speak politely 17:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly possible. I've been here two years and I can't do citewebs from memory, so I'm guessing that that account isn't the only one he's had... would you concur? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

yup. smells like meat. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:16, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Erm, so you're both still convinced I'm BBHS? I don't see what those linked edits prove, other than I like alphabetising charts? I'm not proxy-ing at all, and I'm getting sick of having to defend myself, continually going back to undo your reverts, wikilibs. If you're so determined I am him, please post your proof, because this is getting frustrating. Scarian, I had thought you'd come to your senses - given your reply, but I guess not? HeadlightMorning (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay :-) - We'll assume good faith here. And Libsey will only ever undo your edit if it does not comply with current policy; he doesn't do it out of spite! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I will only revert edits to Canadian musician discogs or any other discogs that are "BBHS-mimic" edits. Thats simple enough. Anything remotely close to the edit style of the permanently banned editor gets rv'd. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well that's the thing - what actually classes as a BBHS-mimic edit? By that, you're effectively saying that not only do you still believe I am BBHS, but I AM vandalising Wikipedia, otherwise you wouldn't still be undoing my edits. Okay, what exactly is wrong with my Matthew Good Band edits which we seem to be battling over the most? Or my Gomez, or my PJ Harvey, which, to my eyes seem like improvements and not just alphabetising. If these are mimics of BBHS, then I'm wondering on what grounds was he a vandal, because these edits show no vandalising whatsoever, more improvements. I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one Scarian, however reasonable you might be on this, I'm getting the impression wiklibs's mind's made up on this matter - he thinks I am BBHS, and thus I can no longer make edits without the strong possibility he's going to revert them, despite what they actually contribute. I apologise if I'm starting to sound uncivil, but I'm losing patience with all of this. Despite assuring you, wikilibs, I am not BBHS, I get one of my perfectly fine edits get reverted, for the third time with this lovely message "be black sock meat". Bloody polite, that is. HeadlightMorning (talk) 00:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Speak politely is a direction to others. If they don't I will ignore them and delete their posts. Be Black Hole Sun is permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. Even valid edits can be reverted because he is permanently banned. Any sockpuppets he creates are permanently blocked and their edits reverted no matter their validity. Failure to do so is just an invitation to Be Black Hole Sun to continue side-stepping his ban. Along with sockpuppets, any meatpuppets that the banned user contacts and uses to complete the edits the banned editor was attempting are also permanently blocked from editing. Hope that helps. Have a nice day! The Real Libs-speak politely 01:18, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I understand why you'd do that to known sockpuppets and others of BBHS, and I'm glad you do that - but I am not him, or have ever contacted him, so I'm at a loss why my valid edits are still being reverted! I'd just like to know how to get out of the cross-fire, and I'd have a nice day if you'd accept that I am not him, and stop battling me and my edits! ;-) If there's something that's uniformly unpleasant about them, and likens them to vandalism by BBHS, could you at least inform me in the future as to why? It'd be much appreciated. HeadlightMorning (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Headlight, perhaps you can start off by reading various policies that we have surrounding the articles that you enjoy editing :-) (for e.g. WP:DISCOG, WP:MUSIC, and WP:BAND). Reading those will help get you started and then you're a step closer to making the best edits Wikipedia has to offer ;-) - An important thing to watch out for is WP:3RR/WP:EDITWAR; Wikipedia can be a frustrating place where editors just revert your edits for no reason [I'm not making a reference to the above], so it's important not to lose control. Anyway, these are just a couple of key policies that'll help you get along on Wikipedia. Oh, and my User talk:Scarian, here you can always leave a message if you need help! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland

News from Bucketheadland Issue 2 - January 30, 2009

You're reading the second issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to kill your mum. New solo album Slaughterhouse on the Prairie released January 30! A to-do list has been added to the main article's talkpage. If you want to modify the entries just go here. We should get the article to "good" (WP:GA) or even "featured" (WP:FA) status in the next two or three months. New collaboration article: Ramy Antoun. We should get it ready very soon as it is at least a stub already. The included workpage section can be used for further info/citing. Afterwards it can be moved to the talkpage. In the News: Chickens, A King and Free Throws, January 2009 Disabled man’s strength lies in his mind, January 2009 From Berklee to Buckethead: The long strange trip of Teri Untalan, January 2009 Jokes of the day: Love and Hate? NOTE: No chickens harmed in the making of these lines.

A request

Excuse me, you reverted every single edit made from this IP address last week. Please note that although there's constant vandalism from it, that does not require that any edit made from it should be reverted. As far as I know, this IP has operated from three different libraries, each with 15+ computers, since September (I have not used it before for editing and nothing was made from it before then apparently) so there is no doubt that there is going to be vandalism. It does not compare to other schools or libraries as a library card is required to use the computers. I myself have been coming after work every Friday for the past few weeks to clean up music articles, which have been of interest to me and is the field I’m most knowledgeable in. I have not been within easy access to a personal computer, nor will I be for the next 5-6 weeks, coupled with not having time to make significantly more edits otherwise. I believe other users have edited from here too, ones that edit history and also music articles.

You are the famous “Libs”, right? I have heard about you and I admire your strict attitude and persistent work. In fact, I also used to share the same philosophy you had on thinking accounts are overrated, but I realize that I can't follow it for long. I ask of you to keep all the edits I made from last week, as all of them are solid, necessary contributions overall. I noticed some of my edits had several format errors, such as the line break/comma issue over genres, so I apologize for any incorrect details I made. However, do not revert an entire good edit just because one or a few parts of it are flawed. It may not be as quick and easy as using quick popups to revert, but I would appreciate it if you would improvise on my errors without taking out the other work. I just created my own account, DeathByMetal666, for use if it is inconvenient/etc. to edit from this IP and/or when this IP gets blocked. If necessary, I can start using it right away, but I still ask to at least keep the edits I made from last week and before. Thank you, and I am looking forward to working with you in the future. 70.183.20.242 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah they weren't worth keeping. Can you not use your old account anymore? Or is it blocked for good? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, and Metallica

You've probably been following the discussion raised by a user who disputes the total worldwide sales figures of groups on the PF and LZ talk pages. The user removed a link from the PF page in response to your remarks about it on the LZ talk page, which was an improper action, especially considering that user was championing the link on one page, while condemning it on another. I restored the link and posted a lengthly reply on the Pink Floyd talk page.

Just between you and me, I do think the link in question is reputable, being statistics from the IFPI, while other sources often don't say where they get their information from. I haven't looked at the sources used in the Led Zeppelin article, but I did glance at the talk page discussion, and it seems like those complaining may have a valid point, despite hostile attitudes and gripes about "wikiality". I don't intend to weigh in, but I was interested in your reply: "That link fails WP:RS unfortunately. It lists Metallica at 200M when their own website and latest press release from the band itself says they have sold just over 100M worldwide." I can see no good reason why their press release would quote only half the sales figures that the IFPI claims, and I find this quite mysterious. I looked at the Metallica website, and could not find a sales figure in their latest two news items. I'm not sure what you mean by press releases, and the WP Metallica article does not have a ciation at the point of the 100M claim. Can you point me to exactly where this claim is made? And do you really think the IFPI list is not reputable? Is there some history behind this? --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Their promo clip for Death Magnetic has little text blurbs that pop up and peacock the band... one of them stating "100 million albums sold worldwide" (probably easier to find on Youtube) Metallica are a promotions machine. If they had some ability to claim 200M... they would've done it already. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I second that, Lars and James wouldn't say 100 if it's 200. And remember, they've only made one hit album, some 20 years ago. All the other releases should be somewhere around 3-5 million each.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 17:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Just a thought. I have been personally acquainted with James, Lars and Kirk for over 2 decades (although I have not spoken to any of them for several years). For that reason I try to remain neutral and distant on their pages (unless its vandalism) I can honestly say that James or Kirk do not really get stoked so much over sales and publicity. They do get stoked over "attendance" though. Lars, on the other hand, grows taller with every M they sell and probably knows right down to the exact number how many the band have sold in each and every country. he also knows who downloaded everything and will get his revenge on all of them someday :D The Real Libs-speak politely 18:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"If they had some ability to claim 200M..." This sounds like backward logic to me. It seems they do have that ability, and I find it hard to believe actual statistics from the IFPI can be shot down by a pop-up footnote in a video. Isn't it likely that pop-up was inserted by an assistant for Metallica who may have got the number wrong? When I was told that Metallica quoted 100M in a "press release" I asked to see it because I presumed it would say where this info came from ("according to..." IFPI or another source), and state exactly what this refers to (it could be just CDs while the IFPI stat could be including vinyl and singles, or it could be that 100M refers to just one album - just to give a for-instance; when comparing 2 claims, we need to check exactly what each claim is measuring). Remember, you are using this information, which is currently uncited in the Metallica article, as a reason for not including these statistics in other artists' articles. Sorry to say, it sounds like a flimsy reason, and I don't blame others for getting upset. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 23:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It was ther official promotional trailer for the release of Death Magnetic. It was streaming on their official metallica.com website. And it clearly stated "100 million albums sold worldwide" Can't quite follow the confusion? If they could claim 200M... they would. But they don't. And Lars gets stuck with little man syndrome forever. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:25, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with small people! Sniffles - How's it going, L? My little hobby is slowly paying off... another few hundred thousand and I'll be back in the black... :-D - How is Pa et al? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 16:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Genre stuff

Keep an eye on this. Enigma^msg 06:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I see that. He earned a warning and then stopped. One more edit and he's gone. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:33, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Just so you know you have a complaint against you here. Thank you. The Seeker 4 Talk 18:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Commented on. Thanks for the heads-up. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Van Halen edits

It seems your a legit editor. The reverts you have completed involving a source on the Van Halen article have evoked a response out of the person who edited it before. By the way he commented about his edit, it seems you may want to talk with him and explain why you reverted it. Just my opinion, not really a suggestion or telling you to. Just so things stay calm over there. --Amaraiel (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic has been rejected as a reliable source for genres. Also, there is already a consensus on the page not to include the genre that the troll account keeps adding in. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That "hell to pay guy" seems very much like a goth! Maybe we shouldn't mess with him? :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

He's a granola. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:21, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I see your warning. Are you crazy?... Didn't you read his edit summary.... now you're going to have to eat a bowl of... 17:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But I love coco pops so much! He retaliated by telling me that AMG was reliable and that if I block him he'll yank my admin status, so I returned with a little known site called NME... sigh - Wiki life is fight, fight, fight... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

The Journey Zone

The Journey Zone is a news site. I've reviewed WP:EL again and don't see the conflict. The fact that it grew out of a fan site and is owned by a fan doesn't change that. Please explain your specific reasoning for trying to take out a long-established (nearly two years) part of the Journey entry. Dave Golland (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your points (on my page). But I challenge the issue of copyright violation. Can you point to a specific instance? Where I re-publish, I have been told that falls under "fair use."

Also, what is "DMOZ?"

Dave Golland (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I still don't see a copyright violation. In any event, I can de-list the Journey Zone but list the interviews individually. Dave Golland (talk) 21:12, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Scarian/Genre trolls

Proposed policy? Clean it up if I've made any spelling errors or anything factual etc. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 07:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland

News from Bucketheadland Issue 3 - February 25, 2009

You're reading the third issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to shout out: "I'm Cocoa for Cuckoo Puffs!" We now have our own assessment department. The bot-operated cleanup listing gives you a fast overview of articles to improve. Manual of Style installed, another important step to become a fully fledged WikiProject. If you don't have yet, you may contribute to our current article collaboration: Ramy Antoun, the drummer of Thanatopsis. Only very few members of the task force use the {{User TFBH}} userbox. You may reconsider your behavior. It's soo nice. But we're also looking for additional designs! Welcome our 20th participant, Bingewedge! In the News: Live dates for 2009 announced! See here! A Pleasant Fiction, the 2004 album by Meridiem featuring Buckethead will be re-issued in March Chinese Democracy, Denver Hard Rock Examiner, February 2009 Compare and wonder: Buckethead vs. Axl Rose Joke of the day: The first two versions of the Buckethead article, back in January 2003. You may compare it to this. NOTE: Currently no chickens in the Slaughterhouse on the Prairie.

Shiny things and related...

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kind words about the Buckethead Newsletter as well as your help in several music related things. Have fun! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 17:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles in need...

Dear member or guest of the Buckethead task force! The project needs you urgently: Ten Buckethead related articles are currently nominated for deletion here and here. Please have a look and let's see if you can help! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 13:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Primus(band) Page

Just wondering why my external link on this page was removed? Cheesetitts (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:EL. No amateur fanspam from Bullboard members. The Real Libs-speak politely 09:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Cream

You recently added "heavy metal" to the Cream article, under "Genres." Interesting call, but I can't find much to support it other than sources that say that Cream was influential on later heavy metal bands.

• "Even though Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Cream, and Deep Purple had a profound influence on the emergence of hard rock and heavy metal music, Black Sabbath was the first true heavy metal band." [11]

Others say that Led Zeppelin and Iron Butterfly were the first heavy metal bands, but Cream was mainly classed as blues and psychedelic, and hard rock. Sunray (talk) 16:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It's referenced. You shouldn't delete referenced content. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I put another image up. FotoPhest (talk) 00:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrator help

Sorry to bother you. I was wondering if you could have one of your administrator friends look in to this issue.link If the rules for repost have changed then this page is OK. But it simply looks like a mere re-creation of a band list with no supporting content or references. If it provided more than a category would that would be good. But it doesn't. And it also doesn't appear as though any of the page's regular editors (or the person who keeps blanking the csd notice) plan to correct of the issues addressed in the original afd. You have edited the article. Did you notice that it was a repost? Thanks for any help. Peter Fleet (talk) 00:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I've relisted it for deletion here. Remember not to edit war over silly speedy tags; it'd be a stupid way to get blocked or warned. It should be a pretty smooth sail into deletion though as it's completely devoid of any useful information. Thanks and regards. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into that Pat. I was thinking WAY back that East718 was the admin who turfed the page. Me, being the d*ck that I am :-D, would've just gone and asked him to plow it again. But your proper "Wiki-nice" approach will do :-D . Each editor was close to 3RR. I have said it before and I will say it again.... Inclusionists are the scourge of all quality on Wikipedia!!!! The Real Libs-speak politely 15:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I was the editor who removed the speedy for reasons I explained in the edit log. According to policy I was perfectly entitled to do so. It is my believe that WP:3RR is not held to apply when one editor is clearly following policy and one is not as was the case here. Any admin should not have "turfed" the article as a speedy as there was contention over the issue and occording to WP:DP this means that normally a speedy shouldn't be used. I believe that the presence of one other keep vote (to date) validates my decision to remove the speedy as it's obviously not clear cut. Furthermore I would not see I'm particularly inclusionist, although in this particular case I do believe that the article should, at the least, be merged (as per my comments at AfD). What I am however is a believer in policy being followed and people being given a chance to comment on anything but the clearest deletions. I argued quite strongly for the deletion of C9orf3 even though I removed the speedy from it because no criteria applies. In this case I believed that the recreation of an article after twenty months warranted further discussion as consensus can change and twenty months is a long time for this to have happened in. Dpmuk (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say 3RR was broken I said it was close. And, had it been me, I wouldn't have bothered tagging the article for speedy D, or anything else, I would have just gone on MSN or IRC and had one of my admin mates delete the stupid thing for me as a favour. I have actually reverted trolling off the page without ever checking to see if it had a valid existence. Had I known it was a repost it would have been gone already and none of this wheel spinning and time wasting would have had to occur. English Wikipedia has 2.7 million articles and 2 million of them are useless shite. We need to clean up somewhere. And many simple band lists have already been terminated because they are useless. This is just one of many that serves no decent purpose. If it were a good companion piece for the article on the music genre that would be one thing. But it isn't. 99% of them aren't. Without checking, I can comfortably wager that many of the bands on that list do not have melodic death metal mentioned anywhere in their articles. That's the way all those stupid band lists are. It's why many have been deleted already. And why many more should be deleted in the future. Encyclopedias shouldn't have subjective lists. Artist genre lists are no different than genre fields in music article infoboxes. They are a waste of time and an anchor for trolls and vandals. Which means they take up decent/dedicated editor time trying to weed out the bad edits instead of contributing to the Wik in more positive ways. I know it is a "sledgehammer" way of thinking about Wiki... but I have been here over 5 years and am nearing 70000 edits... it's frustrating when GAs lay abandoned and unpushed to FA status while good editors spin their wheels debating over whether 'waste-o-space' pages should stay or go. Delete them... be done with it... and move on. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the exceptions list on the 3RR policy, Dpmuk. Just because you think you're abiding by policy in a strict sense does not entitle you to edit war. You may "edit war" (I don't mean that it gives you the free right to unleash rollback hell) over BLP violations, copyvio, and vandalism; absolutely nothing else, buddy. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: 70.X IP

Yeah, was thinking that myself actually. I was speaking to E-man and he told me to think back to every music "mogul" I've ever interacted with. Few people would know of SlayerXT... apart from Luke the Spook... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've sent you an e-mail, Libs. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 14:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tempo of the Damned review

Just a quick clarification. If you look at the wikiproject guidelines on album reviews you'll see it says:

"Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional music journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs)."

Any online publication having a paid or volunteer editorial and writing staff. Which includes Metal Observer. Also:

"Include no more than ten reviews. When choosing which reviews to include, consider the notability of the review source"

In other words, the only place notability comes into it is when we have too many reviews and have to determine which to keep. There's nothing in there that says Metal Observer cannot be used, and indeed, it meets the criteria just fine. Prophaniti (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

it's just another amateur fanzine no different than encyclopedia metallium and cheapens Wikipedia by being linked. It is in the process of being blacklisted anyways so it might as well be rm'd now. Websites like that just cater to the lowest common denominator of heavy metal fan (the level 4 retards) anyways. No one with an IQ over 30 gets any entertainment or education from those types of sites so it is best not to link them. It had an article that was deleted from Wikipedia for good reason. The Real Libs-speak politely 22:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Very nice. So you've shown yourself to be an ignorant and prejudiced editor in this particular case. It's much more than metallum: metallum accepts more or less any and all user submissions. Observer has it's own staff, just like many other music publications. The wikipedia page for it was removed not because of some kind of hate towards it, as you appear to have, but simply because it wasn't deemed very notable (i.e. talked about in other publications).

I will not go into more detail in defending the site, because what you or I personally think is irrelevant anyway. Please in future keep your personal prejudices to yourself. Prophaniti (talk) 09:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stones reverts

Please refer to Rolling Stones talk page: there is a very involved discussion about why we don't want to say Brian Jones was "fired", the consensus is very much against it, even among those who do think he was fired. Also, it doesn't help if good faith edits are reverted without comment: this is how revert wars can be started. If there are issues we need to know about, it would help to bring them forth. Mr Anonymous

Your edit covers more than just Jones. ZYou keep adding the word 'retired' to Bill Wyman. Wyman is far from retired he is still an active musician to this day. The Real Libs-speak politely 03:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Geesh, if only you said that on the Stones entry. Thanks for making me chase the chicken to find you explanation here. Does us a favor, note your corrections when you make them and on the entry they apply to. Mr Anonymous

P.S. I hope Scarian no longer citing Wiki policy that contradicts his arguments, e.g. "The Rolling Stones is". That was good one.

Mr.Anonymous is back again? Anyway, Libs, I'm gonna have to tell you to calm it down on the Black Sabbath article because edit warring is a bad thing! Naughty boy! :-P Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I left it alone. My reverts were valid as it simply put it back to the consensus version as previously discussed on the talk page. Truth be told... the article is about a song which was never released as a single. E-man and I discussed it before. It fails WP:SONG and should actually be AfD'd. But I can't edit it anymore today so I will sleep for now. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

My reverts were valid as it simply put it back to the consensus version as previously discussed on the talk page

Sorry, but as already said, this is not a consensus. This is a fallascious argument. I'm open to consensus, I'm reasonable and I'm ready to accept any real consensus, as long as there's a real discussion to meet an agreement. But for the moment what you're doing is not trying to find a consensus. It sounds like you rather try to impose your views with the fallascious pretext of a consensus. There's no consensus here. I believe You mistake majority with consensus. Imposing majority's view is not the same thing as trying to find a real agreement with every parts involved. As far as I know this not the way a consensus-building process works in wikipedia. But if you think I'm wrong concerning the notion of consensus in wikipedia, please argue instead of ignoring my comments in a despising way.

Anyway, now, you cannot criticize the english of this part anymore. Since it has been fixed.

Oh and btw, I know it would have been convenient for you, but unfortunately as your friend the admin could check in the check user, it turns out that the user "theintrepid" is no sock of mine in anyway. No need to use the check user btw, as it's easily verifiable by reading his imputs as the guy seems to speak fluent english and this is not my case. And as I explained to your friend,I didn't even ask for his support either. He just came by himself as a grown up adult. I don't know this guy.

But I can't edit it anymore today so I will sleep for now.

Does it mean, you're going to bend the rules and keep on reverting it when you'll not be under the 3RR after 24 hours? I hope, well, I think you're more sensible than that. Please let's discuss instead of fighting like this. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you know what fallacious means? How many hours did it take to compose that? The Real Libs-speak politely 22:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know what it means. No matter, how you think my english sucks, I indeed think your argument is fallacious. But instead of being arrogant, if you think I'm mistaken, please argue. Respond to my objection concerning your loose interpretation of what consensus is supposed to be in wikipedia. If you're so certain the consensus rule means imposing majority view, please quote that passage from the wikipedia's rules.

How many hours did it take to compose that?

Ok, what's that got to do with anything anyway except being a rude insinuation? Is that any relevant with the discussion?

Instead of attacking me on my way to compose messages, you could be much more constructive by responding to my objections instead if you can. Thanks in advance for that.

I find it sad, you chose to take refuge into arrogance instead of trying to discuss. Anyway, don't expect me to play the same game.Fred D.Hunter (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Something interesting

L, take a look at this guy. Deszczowe dni (pulled it at random) is NN for sure. But I'm not sure on the policy behind it... AfD or speedy?! I guess you can flip a coin :-D Either way it'll be doing Wiki a service! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Glam metal

You have twiced reverted my good faith edit to the article without any explanation. All I did was changed categories. As I've mentioned in my edit summary, every other heavy metal subgenre gets categorised under the heavy metal subgenres category and not the parent heavy metal category. Please explain your action. --Bardin (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, I have been away for a few days. I corrected the cat. link back under the general hm cat. because having the genre cat. in there leaves the reader with a false impression that the term glam metal is some sort of unique musical style. It is a visual style. But the bands that are typically labeled as 'glam' are labeled that way purely due to the way they look. These bands all play a very generic, very un-unique, very cliche style of hard rock music or heavy metal music. But that's as far as it goes. They "play" hard rock... they "look" glam metal. A genre has nothing to do with 'visual'. It has everything to do with 'audio' Having a heavy metal cat. is perfectly fine since it is an offshoot article related to heavy metal. No different then 'NWOBHM', 'NWOAHM' or 'arena rock' or 'British Invasion' or 'jam band' etc etc etc none are ever used incorrectly in a genre box as they are all "terms" and therefore should be correctly covered that way for the encyclopedia. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand where you're coming from but there's no "music" between "heavy metal" and "subgenres". We've got Christian metal and Viking metal located there. Looking outside heavy metal, we've got anarcho-punk, nazi punk and christian punk all categorised as punk genres. There are plenty of other examples. All I'm saying is that it's not uncommon for music genres to be distinguished by non-musical means. Heck, just look at the convulated mess that is Category:Music by genre: there's religious music, political music, African American music, Children's music, LGBT-related music, etc. Anyway, back to glam metal. I only just noticed that the article describes the subject as a visual style even though there is a paragraph describing its musical characteristics. No relevant citations anywhere though. The heavy metal music article seems to treat glam metal as a music genre: "Musically, the style was distinguished by rapid-fire shred guitar solos, anthemic choruses, and a relatively pop-oriented melodic approach." No citation there either, despite being a featured article. Allmusic does have an entry for both pop metal and hair metal, terms that the wiki article on glam metal asserts are interchangeably used with glam metal. So I think there might be an argument that glam metal is actually more than just the visual content. As for NWOBHM and NWOAHM, I assume the reason why they are not included in the heavy metal subgenres category is because they are both movements that encompass more than one genre each. --Bardin (talk) 19:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Just another thing: curiosity got the better of me and I did a google book search on the terms pop metal and glam metal. There are plenty of sources that refer to it as a genre. This book states "pop metal, the genre that appealed the most to the masses, etc." This book states "that one subgenre of rock, pop metal, had dominated the charts etc." This book describes glam metal as "a sub-genre of heavy metal distinguished by blatant visual androgyny." This book states that "the first musical genre that I identified myself with in my early teen years was glam metal. There are plenty of other examples so I don't really see why wikipedia should be any different in treating glam metal as something other than a subgenre of heavy metal. --Bardin (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Reverting good faith edits w/o comment

More than once has it been noted that you perform reverts on good faith edits and do not comment. This is completely unhelpful and fully contrary to Wiki Etiquette. [[12]]. We are not mind readers and should not have to beg for explanations. Also, there has been no acknowledgment of this complaint yet. Work with us, baby. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It Dies Today and articles on albums

Are they notable? Are their albums notable? cheers, Enigma^msg 06:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Very much so. See WP:BAND and compare. Anyway, Libs, look at this one. You get one guess as to who I think this guy is a sock of and I'll lay odds of 3:1. Oh and you gotta bet in future "buy" beers as I don't trade in Canadian currency anymore... what with this whole Madoff thing. Guy took my whole bloody penny piggy bank... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm gonna have to reduce those odds to 1:1. I'm on fire tonight. Haven't heard from you in a day or two; I hope everything is alright. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Forget it. I missed. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 02:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi again (after 3 month wikibreak)

Hi Libs! Can't talk - I'm rushing here. Say hello to this guy alright! See ya! Rory (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A request

Excuse me, you reverted every single edit made from this IP address last week. Please note that although there's constant vandalism from it, that does not require that any edit made from it should be reverted. As far as I know, this IP has operated from three different libraries, each with 15+ computers, since September (I have not used it before for editing and nothing was made from it before then apparently) so there is no doubt that there is going to be vandalism. It does not compare to other schools or libraries as a library card is required to use the computers. I myself have been coming after work every Friday for the past few weeks to clean up music articles, which have been of interest to me and is the field I’m most knowledgeable in. I have not been within easy access to a personal computer, nor will I be for the next 5-6 weeks, coupled with not having time to make significantly more edits otherwise. I believe other users have edited from here too, ones that edit history and also music articles.

You are the famous “Libs”, right? I have heard about you and I admire your strict attitude and persistent work. In fact, I also used to share the same philosophy you had on thinking accounts are overrated, but I realize that I can't follow it for long. I ask of you to keep all the edits I made from last week, as all of them are solid, necessary contributions overall. I noticed some of my edits had several format errors, such as the line break/comma issue over genres, so I apologize for any incorrect details I made. However, do not revert an entire good edit just because one or a few parts of it are flawed. It may not be as quick and easy as using quick popups to revert, but I would appreciate it if you would improvise on my errors without taking out the other work. I just created my own account, DeathByMetal666, for use if it is inconvenient/etc. to edit from this IP and/or when this IP gets blocked. If necessary, I can start using it right away, but I still ask to at least keep the edits I made from last week and before. Thank you, and I am looking forward to working with you in the future. 70.183.20.242 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Nah they weren't worth keeping. Can you not use your old account anymore? Or is it blocked for good? The Real Libs-speak politely 01:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for responding late- last month, I was out for three fridays due to one vacation, one business trip, and a period of illness, and this IP address last week was blocked for vandalism.

I didn't make myself clear, but I actually never had an account, I only edited from my own IP when I had my computer. What exactly are you refering to when you are saying "blocked for good"? I was never a large contributer that long ago, but I never did anything to be blocked ever since I got used to wikipedia, so I'm not sure what you mean. Anyways, I'm disappointed at your attitude toward my edits. They are definately worth keeping, and certainly not worth reverting for any reason. You may have forgot about this key point, as you do much reverting day by day. Two examples of necessary cleanup edits I made are here and here. The first edit corrected incorrect grammar in the first sentence, added missing albums, made the tables square and clean, and removed repeated releases. The version you have in store now... rubbish. The next edit was akin to most of my article cleanup sequences: The infobox had incorrect spacing for labels and acts, improper history/biography titles, incorrect grammar at the top of that section (same with the rest of the section, but I didn't feel like cleaning that up), unorganized discography, repeated external links of band members that were located in their respective articles, and lacked several categories. It was wrong of me to use spaces to seperate the genres, but I fixed that later on, and then the article was splendid. I demand a complex, reasonable explanation of why those or any of my other edits of modertate or large size are incorrect in any way (besides the genre formats). Not anything else, such as anything about me, other editors there, or the circumstance of the edit, just the edit (moreso for generality, not individual tiny errors). Thank you. 70.183.20.242 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

You are friends with Angry Shoplifter/AN OLD MAN, right? And you're a student at a school in Atlanta, yes? I know you're a student because you spell definitely as "definatly" and it's an elementary spelling error that younger people usually make. And I know you know AS/AOM because he mentioned something about a friend who also edits in an e-mail once. You also knew of Libs before you even originally messaged him which is interesting.

Perhaps this is even AS/AOM being clever and pretending to be someone else. I'm gonna look a bit more into it. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah... return of AS/AOM? Rory (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible. But we don't know exactly for sure. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

subscription alert

Hi, why did you move the subscription alert tag to the main page? It's generated a nonsensical error. The project follows naming procedure. MegX (talk) 00:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It's cool. I just realised myself that the tag should be moved to the alerts page. Since the project is now properly listed in the banner category, it should now work and generatee a list of articles up for deletion/review etc etc. MegX (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, It's all fixed now, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Led Zeppelin/Article alerts. Cheers. MegX (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Robert Palmer

That wasn't a cover. It was a promo shot from the record company that went out to the press. Since he's deceased, I can use a non-free image with rationale. FotoPhest (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Please reply

I seriously hope that you weren't referring to me as a retard. Can you please give a response to the glam metal issue I brought up earlier on this talk page of yours? --Bardin (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly don't think you are a retard I believe you are one of the better editors here. We disagree sometimes... but that is not a reflection on your edits. As for glam I thought I already addressed that. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of confidence. As for the glam metal thing, I did wrote a couple of long paragraphs above in response to your initial reply. It's not a big deal but I'd still like to know whether I can re-categorise the page under heavy metal subgenre again without getting reverted. If Christian metal and Viking metal gets placed there, I don't see why glam metal shouldn't be. --Bardin (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be better for the Wik in the end for us to just go ahead and rm the genre tag from Christian metal and Viking metal wouldn't it. Christian metal is just heavy metal (or in some cases brutal death metal) with Christian themes. Viking metal is... what exactly is it again???... :-D .. its power metal with Conan lyrics. I've actually reverted Viking metal from being added to the genre field of Led Zeppelin's Immigrant Song... which is both amusing and annoying.(the edit that is... not the song) The Real Libs-speak politely 10:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the thing is they are still generally seen as heavy metal subgenres. As I explained in the long paragraphs at the glam metal section (have you read it?), even glam metal is frequently mentioned as a subgenre of heavy metal music. In other words, a subgenre does not have to be based on musical qualities but could apparently be based on non-musical distinctions. So if sites like allmusic and books like those I mentioned include glam, christian and viking metal as subgenres of heavy metal music, why shouldn't wikipedia? As it is, all three are mentioned as genres inside the infobox for the wikipedia article on heavy metal music. --Bardin (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

L, are you aboot? M to the S to the...! *cheerleads!* :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Stuart Garrard

I would like to see the criteria to be a Gibson player.Bertoduran09 (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of article along with hidden text when article is opened for edit. New addition must be proposed and discussed before inclusion. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

Quite erudite for a first edit, wouldn't you agree? And he won't reply to talk messages but he sure knows how to remove them. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BB A_Hole or Angry Sh*tsniffer or Puke the fluke? The Real Libs-speak politely 10:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

BBHS comparison, Angry Shoplifter comparison, and LukeTheSpook comparison. I think a CU would've seen the link between BBHS and TOO12, so we can eliminate him. This guy has been around since '07 and AS and LtS all had CU's after that date so they would have caught him before that... It's interesting though. Some close comparisons etc. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 10:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussed where exactly?my experience is that even with discussion etc inclusion is purely arbitrary86.146.42.147 (talk) 14:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland

News from Bucketheadland Issue 4 - March 21, 2009

You're reading the forth issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to shout out: "Well, well, well..." Article alerts installed. A bot will inform us about a wide range of workflows for all articles under our scope. This does not affect the cleanup listing by the WolterBot. Buckethead main article nominated for article collaboration. It's only a few weeks until the maestro's alleged 40th birthday - do we get the article to WP:GA or WP:FA in time? In the News: A special three-disc version of the movie Flesh For the Beast, featuring the soundtrack by Buckethead will be released in May 2009. 2009 Buckethead tour: New live dates announced on the official website; That 1 Guy is touring, too. Ash Wednesday: Thou shalt not... Joke of the day: Steven Seagal and "Jordan"... NOTE: Currently all chickens are Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse.

Look here

Suspicious? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 20:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Manual of Style

I'd be obliged if you'd check the Manual of Style before thoughtlessly undoing my careful work. --Pete (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cream image

Greetings, Wiki libs. I've started a discussion of your recent Cream related image edits, at Talk:Cream (band)#Band image in infobox. Feel free to join in there. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

WHOis working for you?

I saw this one on Utan; not coming up with anything...? Proxy? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg Manitoba. Still not sure who... but they are busy. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Gibson Byrdland links et-al

Hi I am just getting used to the lie of the land around here. On the Byrdland Thread I have posted what I would say are useful additions to the information on that instrument. The Gibson Players list is a link and a poor one in terms of reference to the Byrdland. What is the problem do you think with the links I have posted? I collect guitars and have been researching the Byrdland model for over a year now. I own a vintage model and would like to see this section of the Wiki doing justice to the guitar. There are a number of edits I would suggest to the main article which is one dimensional in many respects relying mostly on the one source book, there is no reference to the 11th edition of the blue book or any edition of the blue book for that matter a material shortcoming in relation to any rare vintage instrument, even a cursory look at the shipping figures I posted a link to would show that the Byrdland is a rare and yet influential instrument. How does one discuss edits I do think there is rather a lot to discuss before this entry could be said to be satisfactry. I realise that Wikepedia is more than just a collection of links it does seem to me that such a big section of this entry relies on a link and an unimformitive one at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 19:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing here but having just reviewed the post above entitled a request, I am starting to form the opinion that there is some pretty arbitrary and undemocratic editing going on in here. I am looking to enter into a sensible discussion as to how I might collaborate in getting the Entry for the Gibson Byrdland into a shape that actually communicates the importance of the Byrdland model in the development of the thin line guitar. If Wikipedia is to be other than a collection of links it should also be less than the one dimensional precis of one old source book. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) My intention is to restore the links I have made or at least provide the list of notable players I have compiled within the body of the article. All sources of players are actually accredited to their source as are the sources of the photographs of the players with their instruments where I have them. This represents 4 months work alone. The shipping figures I mentioned should also be placed in the article to give context to the influence of the byrdland in relation to the numbers actually manufactured. The raw data speaks for itself as represented in the link, but if to get the information into the article I am happy to extract the apposite numbers . There is an important article published by George Gruhn on the Byrdland a world renowned expert on vintage and rare guitars and the history of the instrument, that there is no reference to this article is a material shortcoming, in my opinion, of the entry as it stands. I am reminded of the old saying about those living in glass houses not throwing stones. RogerGLewis (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC) I have now slept on this and re-read what i have said above and reflected on the rules/suggestions as to what appropriate links to a subject/entry should be. A link that clarifies a point or supports a statement should be considered as valid. The existing link in this article to notable players leads to a generic list of endorsed gibson players of all of their models, the link I have posted whilst it links to a forum it is the moderated forum of the Gibson company in the Hollow and semi hollow body section of the forum. The Gibson forum is a valuable source of information on all things to do with Gibson models as a source it is useful and as a link re-enforcing an already weak link it would seem to me to add something to the article.WIth respect to the link to shipping figures the information on this site is extremely well researched and is the best representation I have come across of all shipping figures for Gibson guitars. A large amount of interest in Gibson guitars has been generated by the famous 1959 and 1960 Les Paul Standard model which have exchanged hands for $1,000,000 plus privately and at auction, prices in excess of $500,000 are routine. 1278 Les Paul Standards were shipped in 59/60. Now consider the Byrdland first production run up to 1969 when from 1955 through to 1969 only 1147 were ever made the largest production/shipping run being in 1968 when 198 were shipped. This sort of information is available by looking at the sources I have suggested as a link. The current precised entry looking at the history going way back has become very sparce but does not communicate the substance of this instrument either by example or by reference, On the above basis I propose to re-instate the links I suggest today and would ask that should other contributors wish to add a further piece within the main article contextualising the links, could we exchange messages and decide what would be appropriate. I would equally accept that some explanation ahead of the links could help to clarify what direction those links lead. There really isn't a condensed source of information on the web for the Gibson Byrdland and I am excited that Wikipedia at least has the opportunity to provide a window into the very great history of this instrument a lot of younger guitarists I think seem to have the impression it's just something that Ted Nugent plays?RogerGLewis (talk) 08:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

See WP:EL. No forums allowed. Re-adding banned links can result in your account being blocked. The Real Libs-speak politely 10:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Real Libs, I will re-read the links I didn't get the no forums being allowed bit, my question regarding a list of Players of Byrdlands rather than the generic list still stands, how do I put a researced list in ( the existing list does omit some very noteable modern players not least Russell Malone and Anthony Wilson both of who have played for or do play for Diane Krall using Byrdland's.The Forum objection does not apply to the link to the Gibson Shipping data, this is not a forum and this is also a fantastic source of Gibson and Vintage guitar information what is the objection to this link. Would a citation to manufacturing numbers be needed in the body of the article? Thanks for looking at this.By the way I fixed the link to the gibson web site it now opens at the Byrdland page rather than the custom page which I assume is/was the intention? RogerGLewis (talk) 11:11, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Real Libs, I notice over on the Les Paul entry there is discussion also on the Notable players section. I also note that in external links there is a link to a Les Paul discussion forum,and not even the Gibson Les Paul forum. I as I have said I disagree with you that the rules state there shall be no links to Forums, they are allowed if their inclusion is justifiable.So what is the moderation process in this peer reviewed encyclopedia? What's the big difference between the Les Paul Entry and Byrdland one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 12:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Libs, it's difficult to write beautifully when one is adding a name to a list. I disagree with you on George Benson his use of the Gibson L5 is legendary, OK he used Ibanez, but his L5 once owned by Wes Montgomery and sold at Skinners proves quite a lot. On Donna Stoneman are you saying that she doesn't deserve an article, she qualifies under the three headings, even without an article? To be honest this list really isn't worth the effort it has very real shortcomings it is inconsistent in that a lot of the entries don't meet the criteria which you are imposing and the criteria you are imposing are subjective to your own tastes it seems rather than ticking the 3 headings. The problem with lists and terms like noteable are that they are subjective, your asking for higher levels of proof for the ones you don't like and accepting ;lower levels for the ones that you do does seem to me to defeat the object here. Wayne Bennett, Donna Stoneman, Anthony Wilson, Billy Byrd for goodness sake? I really was suprised there wasn't an article of Billy Byrd but a citation to the obituary in the Independant news paper not being sufficient evidence is just plain daft.Because there is no article in Wikipedia on a particular Guitar player does not seal the fate as to whether they are noteable or not that goes for Donna Stoneman too. Oh well I guess I'll check in now and again shake my head at the inadeqaucies that you guard so well and get on with other things, life really is to short to be wasting any more time on this.The list would benefit from a nursery slope type process the discussion aspects of this site actually contribute to the wasting of enthusiatic peoples willingnesss to contribute, there is no peer review here as far as I can gather.RogerGLewis (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Libs steady on thats no copyright violation its an attributed quote linked ru=ight back to an archive of all George Gruhns articles published on the web by Gruhn guitars. The article adds a lot to this piece on the Byrdland. AT least if your going ot remove things get your facts right that is not a copyright violation how is it if you still contend that it is?I've reversed it back by the way, could you have another editor look at it pleaseRogerGLewis (talk) 13:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I will dig out the template, that said even on a template if something was copyrighted and the holder dod not intend it to be re-produced it would still be a breach of copyright even if on a template surely?RogerGLewis (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

the Tone tags

You'll notice that the "tone" tags you've put on a couple of Kinks pages say that the issue is discussed in the Talk page. You need to do that - put a few sentences on the Talk page describing what you think needs to be done. Otherwise the tag will get removed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Better? The horrid writing style stuck out like a sore thumb. Added talk page commentary wasn't really necessary for something that obvious. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice follow-up edits. I intend to follow up all tags myself over time to rm some of the poetic goo. For today, if I have time, the pages all need a serious WP:DATE cleanup. After that... trim the fat. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your tireless work reverting vandalism on wikipedia MegX (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

As always, I am humbled. Thanks for the new shiny!!!!! The Real Libs-speak politely 12:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re-post

I left this message on what I think may be your old user talk. If not, I've really confused someone and I'm sure I'll hear from them. Here goes:

Thanks for pointing out the good faith of the editor you referenced in your message. Unsourced, poorly constructed edits that blank text and are executed without summary have every appearance of vandalism. I hope you understand why I used the rollback instead of contacting the user personally (which my contribs will show that I have recently started doing). Since you have been to my talk page you will also have seen that I try to guide editors to help whenever I'm contacted. I'll be glad to leave a message of apology on the user's talk in hopes that they will feel more welcomed (which would be my aim for every editor). Please do not hesitate to message me in future with suggestions, help, advice etc. Tiderolls 21:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In all likelihood they were just a drive-by/one-time-only editor. But the sentiment is good. :-D I shouldn't have been so picky ( God knows I don't follow-up on my own mistakes... oh wait... I don't make any :-D) but I has only just learned earlier today that Angus was, in fact, a Wizard Amp user (Here I always thought he was Marshall loyal) Take care! The Real Libs-speak politely 23:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Not at all...picky is good. I'm really new to this and need the guidance. I know I've been pushing the boundries on how to judge vandalism and I need to be more policy oriented. Plus, I don't want to discourage new editors and their potential. And "Wizard"?...I grew up in the 60's and 70's..."Marshall" is all I know :) Tiderolls 00:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I am a very early 1960s vintage myself. Good to see someone closer to my age contributing to the project.(I think the average Wikipedian is about 19.... 9 on some days) The Real Libs-speak politely 00:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

PS... A wizard 100W head costs twice as much as an equivalent Marshall 100W head. Makes me very curious to try one... but I have been hauling the same HiWatt stack around Eastern Canada since the late 1970s... it is my baby and I don't want to make it jealous by looking at something new and young. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Darkseed

I need a little help mr.libs.Darkseed is redirected to Dark seed disambiguation and as there's only one Darkseed in the disambiguation page and the others are Dark seed some of them just misspelled as Darkseed, I thought maybe Darkseed (German band) should be moved to Darkseed but I dont know how to request it.I really appreciate your help.Solino_{the Wolf} 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Go to WP:RM. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you mr.Libs.I appreciate that.Solino_{the Wolf} 10:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Crayon

What is Alf's fav crayon flavor - I need to know so when I need help, I can tempt him... Rory (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin WikiProject

Hey WikiLibs, can you take over the WikiProject? Due to work commitments I no longer have time to edit wikipedia. Cheers. MegX (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice try, sock! Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JamesBurns/Archive I suspect User:Duffbeerforme is another sock, but he hasn't edited for several weeks. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 05:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ahh.. mixed feelings Hexi. I do not support afd shenanigans in any way shape or form. And at the same time to list a newly blocked account combined for over 40000 constructive edits that had nothing to do with AfDs... which is sad to see. I am a strong supporter of Wiki-justice. I am not completely familiar with the editing habits of any of the named accounts in the CU case except for MegX... an account I always had no problem with (an account that I never felt the need to review their edits because I trusted what they were doing was right) A trust that existed despite the fact that MegX and I had a very very very strong disagreement on certain content matter in the Led Zeppelin article, Now I am learning that the accounts that always came to the side of MegX during our numerous debates were, in fact, MegX in disguise. I never had any suspicions in all the time I have seen this editor(s) on Wikipedia. You probably know better than most... if you know anything about me at all.... that if I did have suspicions I would have gone behind the scenes directly to one of my admin friends and had an investigation done and blocks in place without ever giong through the formalities of a proper CU case. Despite my own personal wiki-views towards "deletionism"... I have actually created very few AFD cases myself. But I have created some throughout my 5 years involved in this project and I hate the idea that any of them may have been compromised by any sock votes. That being said, I can't recall many AfDs that I did create that weren't overwhelming "deletes" in the end... and as I've stated earlier... I am not familiar with most of the names in the list of blocked accounts so I don't think too many of my AfD had any JB/MX involvement..... I think???.... I hope??? Glad to see you are still involved in Wikipedia in some way Hexi... even if it is a reduced involvement. I stand by what I said to you before... you and I have a concrete disagreement with regards to what content is worthy of an article on Wikipedia... but despite this disagreement... I still feel you are one of the best editors I have crossed paths with here... and I hope you stay involved in some way for a long time. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Try to be fair

I have sought dispute resolution only to have the other user move it to the talk page so no one will ever see it. Why is this put only on my page when the other user was clearly "edit warring" as well. I didn't even know of the three revert rule. Please do a little research before you start throwing out ready made templates on talk pages.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

No. perhaps you should research how to edit Wikipedia properly before trying to contribute here. There are lots of people here who can help. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ritchie Blackmore

After see a talk page of another user I didn't know what they were going on about but having looked at the history of the Ritchie Blackmore article I noted that you reverted three times and those three time no edit summary was given for the reverts. I have to agree with the editors second revert reason that it fails WP:BLP since it's unsourced without any reliable and verifiable sources. Also note that you should also be careful from reverting the content back in without addressing the issue raised and be mindful of the 3 revert rule since you could be blocked. Bidgee (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

It just has to be re-worded to match the refs given in the paragraph. + it was 2 rvs on the whiner not 3. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:23, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Genre trolls

Hi Libs, how goes all? A couple of points on the troll list. 1) We're running out of space; it's getting quite long. How do we monitor all those IP/accounts when the list is going to get longer and longer? We could archive the blocked ones? But then what about the IPs? That list, due to their numbers, will continue to grow and grow? 2) We need to make warning templates. I've talked to guys about it before but I've forgotten how to do it... any ideas? We need to make the templates in accordance with that essay I wrote on my userpage. e.g. First warning is "gentle", second is harder, and third is the final warning. I'm getting sick of writing it out all the time :-D - Any ideas much appreciated, L. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say we just delete the ones that have been dormant for a couple of months. It can just be an organic list that grows and decays along with the project. As for warning templates I do not know any exact wording. I have no use for "polite" warnings... myself... (I think all warnings should just start with "F**k off")... BUT... a general comment about changing genres without discussion being bad form + a note about reliable sources and not using Allmusic as a source. Level 2 is the more blunt "don't" version of level 1. Level 3 is the "stop now" warning. And Level 4 the "final." I have never had a rule of thumb (because I've never been asked to input on woording a warning)... but if I did have a thumb rule... Level 1 should be 3 clear sentences... level 2 has 2 sentences... level 3 has 1 sentence and level four just says "F*CK OFF A**H*LE!!!!!" LOL! :-D. If I see a test template in front of me.. Shiny happy" warning words may come to me. :) The Real Libs-speak politely 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

HEY while I have you attention... last Friday I rv'd a Russion IP genre troll. I come back in to work this morn and looked back at those article that the IP was trolling.... take a look and what has been going on in the edit histories on those pages... The is a floating Russian IP troll.. I will call him 92.X that is very intent on keeping his version of the genres on those pages. There must be at least 15 articles that he is breaking WP:OWN on. The user has an account too. (created after I reverted the same guy quite a while ago) The account is Осенняя мгла (talk · contribs). If you want something to do... I would semi P all of the album pages related to Cannibal Corpse and put a perma block on Mr Осенняя мгла. There is a long history of 92.X genre trolling on those pages. Thoughts? The Real Libs-speak politely 14:26, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to REO Speedwagon

Regarding your recent edits to REO Speedwagon, I believe it would be much preferable to in some way set apart the principal members of the band from those whose role is much more limited. If the previous approach is not acceptable, what would you suggest would be a good way to achieve this? --mwalimu59 (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland

News from Bucketheadland Issue 5 - April 27, 2009

You're reading the fifth issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to shout out: "Ain't got no boy!" New solo album, A Real Diamond in the Rough, announced April 27 for a May 2009 release! Tour dates for August 2009 announced! Buckethead is the current subject of the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive, make the Taskforce proud! In the News: An 8:07 extended-solo version of track 13, "Forgotten Path", was made available with the iTunes release of Albino Slug. Pat Metheny recommends Buckethead just in general on his website. Joke of the day: Separated at birth?? NOTE: Did you encounter Flesh for the Beast?

Eek!

Did you see the pig walk by? Eek! Rory (talk) 06:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Anthrax

Hi - you just reverted my changes to the Anthrax album pages in disagreement with the discussion and policies stated at WP:ALBUM. Can you please undo your reversions? Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 00:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

No you screwed up the proper succession information and I corrected it. Read WP:ALBUM again. If you want someone to explain it to you let me know and I will have an admin friend help you out. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There is a discussion on WP:ALBUM discussing exactly this case, and the consensus is that EPs that are really mini-albums go in the chronology with LPs. There is also nothing in WP:ALBUM that specifically mentions EPs at all as far as anyone can see. Please look again and cite the exact text you mean, here. Luminifer (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)^{Call me Pat!} 11:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If the discussion is "ongoing" then there cannot be any consensus; as such, the standard that Libs is setting remains. Scarian

The discussion is not "ongoing", at least was not last I checked. I waited for some dead time. Who said ongoing? Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You took the words right out of my fingers P. And as to this new discussion... the consensus is still the same as it was before... so nothing has/will change anyway. I hate wheel spinning. Consensus is consensus... that's how Wiki works... so move along... nothing to see here. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The consensus apparently did not exist before - but the consensus of the discussion is that mini-album style EPs go with the LPs in chronology, and NOTHING in WP:ALBUM contradicts this at all, nor does it make sense to have a separate chronology for, essentially, shorter LPs. So in this case, consensus on that talk page says these EPs go with LPs. (Not that I believe consensus is always right, and it does NOT say in WP that conensus always wins) Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Btw, stay on Wiki for 10 more minutes minimum and keep your eyes on this space. I got someone working on a surprise for you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay... you got me hooked... (although I am going to go for a bathroom break and then a coffee :-D ) The Real Libs-speak politely 13:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See here :-D Alls I have to do now is get them added to TW and we're rolling. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant Mate!!!!!!!!... absolutely brilliant! How long before they show up in me Twinkle'r? The Real Libs-speak politely 13:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See the bottom of WT:UTM :-/ Hit a bit of bureaucracy... Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you miss my response? It clearly says in the WP:ALBUM discussion that mini-album EPs should be listed alongside LPs in the chronology. Luminifer (talk) 04:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit?

Hello my friend, I changed the genre of some Led Zeppelin's songs to a more realist genres, why did you revert all these edits? You reverted using popups, but I don't know what is this. Can you help me to "update" all these songs genre? thank's --Italodal (talk) 04:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Music Genres

My recent changes in music genres doesn´t have conflicted with wikipedia's neutral point of view and verifiability policies. No one disagree with my changes. Some music genres still conflicting, one exemple: In Pink Floyd's Soundtrack from the Film More the article says that both "Green Is the Colour" and "Crying Song" are folk rock ballads, but the genre still Psychedelic rock. Is realy frustrating when you spend hours searching for something better, then your edits are undone without further discussion. Thank's --Italodal (talk) 18:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You need to state your verifiable references... propose genre changes on the talk page (not declare them)... and wait for discussion and consensus before tampering with the genre field of any article on Wikipedia. Your links all fail WP:RS The Real Libs-speak politely 18:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can you help me? Where the Psychedelic rock genre come from in Crying Song or Green is The Colour for exemple, I don't see any source about this. I don't see any discussion about call these musics of "Psychedelic rock". I think we can improve these articles, but I need help.--Italodal (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no plan to go around and delete content that was in place before the rules were updated.(it would require way to much work) But new additions or alterations require discussion and verifiable sources that pass WP:RS (which blogs certainly do not) The Real Libs-speak politely 19:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that what you did here though? [13] ? Although I'm confused about that edit, because even allmusic lists most of those genres under C.O.C. Luminifer (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Allmusic isn't to be used as a source fr genres on Wikipedia. Allmusic separates genre and style whereas Wiki does not. So Allmusic can't be used. The Wikipedia rule for this field is to aim for generality. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

It might be helpful to have a list of genres that is easily found by casual wikipedians - it would reduce the number of edits that don't conform to this standard. Maybe even a template with multiple choice options? (I don't really agree with this policy though - where is it stated?) Luminifer (talk) 19:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Wiki alf and I have been talking for a couple of years about how wonderful it would be if there were only 6 choices. Detailed subgenre content belongs in the main article body, not the little box. Essentially, a band or artist is either Rock, Pop, Country Jazz, Blues or Classical. Everything else is just an adjective. A little pull down menu with a limited selection would be wonderful. Last year there was a grand discussion amongst some of the most veteran music editors on Wikipedia and a fantastic consensus arose to actually go ahead and remove the stupid genre field from all music infoboxes. But then a vocal minority whined and bitched (most of them were veteran pov genre warriors) and the field was re-instated.. mainly to shut them up. It was the best 5 weeks Wiki ever had... and the quietest I had ever seen my 7500+ watchlist in over 5 years of editing. I want those 5 weeks back. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. I would have voted for removing it entirely as well - in fact, I still would!.Luminifer (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

This is sort of unrelated, but I thought you seemed like someone who would be receptive to this: A lot of contributors don't care to/don't bother to read all of WP (they're just casual contributors). It would save everyone a lot of work if the policies were such that, for most of these casual people, what they wanted to do by default actually was WP. (and, in cases where it wouldn't be, making it really obvious to them how to do it somehow, so some WP guy like you doesn't have to undo/fix everything all the time). Luminifer (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't quite follow what you were saying exactly. But from the gist of your post... it would've interested you to know that there was some discussion that new accounts and IPs edits would actually be only "probationary" and that they would not "go live" until they were reviewed by a regular "vet". Nice idea in some ways... but in the end... it just added WAY too much work to people who are already volunteering WAY to much of their free time to this little place anyways. Want to know my history?? With my original account I had over 20000 edits and was prompted more than a dozen time to let my name stand for admin nomination (something I turned down each and every time) Because I saw a growing trend to make Wikipedia a log-in-account-only project (something I felt was opposite of what Wiki was all about) I rejected my original account and started editing as an anon IP editor. After over 30000 edits as an anon ( during which time I anonymously contributed to the building of 25 featured articles) I decided to go back to an account... the one I have now. And I an still rejecting all RfA prods. I've seen editors with more edits than me ignore policy. I've seen administrators abuse their mops and ignore policy. I don't get to frazzled over it. En-Wiki has over 2 million articles... I watch 7500 of them. And that's more than enough. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mr. False Accusation guy?

Could you explain why you removed content from the Robert Plant article, which I reverted, and then accused me of removing the content? And then posted a message on User:Scarian's talk page about my reversion of User:John's revert on The Beatles article in which he offered no edit summary, and didn't check the Talk page to maybe see if there was consensus about "flagcruft" at that article? Radiopathy •talk• 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it... the diff clearly shows him removing the content... I just don't get it... I've been here for so long and I've seen so many diffs... in that one Radiopathy undoes an edit and, in doing so, removes sourced content. It just doesn't make sense to me. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 01:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Got anything for me to do...? Rory (talk) 07:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, he must have been drunk. Experienced editors don't blank content on purpose... usually. Radiopathy blanked an entire section because he drank 1 beer and was wasted before he logged in to edit. He can be given another chance. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

mass listing ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:British_blues&diff=288347695&oldid=288255839 --almaghi (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Re: Rainbow bass

It was someone's bass guitar. There's no assertion of notability (notability is not inherited). If you can provide a source showing it's notable, I'll restore. Also, I'll gladly provide you with the deleted text if you want to integrate it into another article. On it's own there was no chance it would have made it past an AFD, despite who played it. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Well if you feel that way, there is WP:DRV. Kwsn (Ni!) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

News from Bucketheadland

News from Bucketheadland Issue 6 - May 8, 2009

You're reading the sixth issue of News from Bucketheadland, the infamous but irregular organ of the Buckethead Taskforce, telling you what binges and what not in the land of Headcheese. Feel free to shout out: "Byrralku Dhangudha!" Just another heads up: The Buckethead main article is still up for collaboration at WP:ACID. We also continue to work on the article about drummer Ramy Antoun. In the News: A preview of Death Cube K's upcoming album Torn from Black Space, the track "Watchers", can be heard on the new site of Rare Noise Records. "Watchers" is the fifth track out of six previews. A free twelve track pormo CD can be ordered on the website, too. According to the label, Torn from Black Space is slated for a release date in October. According to Bootsy Collins' official MySpace, the upcoming Z-Class album will feature veteran GN'R guitarists Buckethead and - ehm - one guy called Slash. See for yourself! Bootsy Collins mentions Buckethead in an interview with Sporting News. Recent Buckethead show opener, the Portland Cello Project have a Buckethead Tour Diary on their website. The diary gives some insights to Buckethead behind the scenes, but actually far less than some might wish. Joke of the day: Reese Witherspoon's secret... NOTE: Are you waiting for Captain EO to return?

I've e-mailed you, L. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Great .... what's my email again? Hold on... ( un-organised engineer fuddles thru drawers for top secret email book) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Your hotmail one ;-) You ol' fuddy duddy! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 18:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, me hm has been hit/miss so I never have it on... on me way. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Before I get to my email (since I can't remember the password) I would just like to say that if any broom pilots try to start a ruck-up I know someone who will speak to the ruck. The only thing worse than moppers who are w*tches... and thing only thing worse than moppers who are b*tches.... is when those qualities can be found in the same person. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh no...

Scarian left us... <sob> Rory (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I Started a Joke...

Actually, I think you missed the joke. Or did I miss yours? ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just chimin' that if anyone ever wanted to nom you up for RfA I would support it.... whether todays comment about giving you the mop was serious or not... I think you would be a fine admin. BTW.... re: "I started a joke"... thanks.... now I am going to have that song stuck in my head all day. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a nice song, isn't it? Only know the Faith No More version, though. Your comment makes me proud, but I don't need the mop (or the additional buttons). I'm way past my zenith of contribution and also think the project itself is past its height. Also, I think I'm not retarded enough (oops!) to carry this mop much longer than a few days, not to mention getting it in the first place. Anyways, thank you! --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

-D The Real Libs-speak politely 18:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW: I'd appreciate more input from your side regarding this newsletter dispute. Am I right or wrong? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 18:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's another thing I wanted to discuss with you: [14]. I know, W&A are not on the whitelist, but also they're not on the blacklist (see Wikipedia:ALBUM#Review sites). A search brings up a few mentions on Wikipedia (in a variety of genres). I added them because, even being short (ehm, Christgau?), they are the most complete coverage of Buckethead related albums on the internet, even more complete than allmusic. And they have a good coverage on similiar topics like Primus, Parliament-Funkadelic and Laswell, too - plus, of course, a whole bunch of completely unrelated artists. Another point is, they often are on the other end of the skala compared to allmusic, if there's an allmusic equivalent. I added them, regardless if they're pro or contra, so it's far away from fancruft. Ah, and see: [15] A quick Google search shows that they're quoted by both, fans and artists a lot. So, why did you remove them? ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 20:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

[16]

86.3.61.125 (talk) 22:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

a Harrison question

hello again Libs - hope you're well and prospering! if you have time to weigh in on this discussion of a proposed change to the George Harrison article, that would be great. thanks Sssoul (talk) 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of nu metal bands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of nu metal bands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal bands (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Why you reverted my edits?

I see no reason to you had did it, I cited two references, and you not even said why. I'm speaking of the List of hard rock bands and artists. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC))

3rr

On Queen (band) you have violated the 3rr, I suggest you revert your revert, thus absolving you of any violation, thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism doesn't count. I am reporting the user to VirtualSteve and he can block all the socks. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, the user clearly genuinely believes the band to still be active: edit summary:

"18:26, 1 June 2009 04parrw (talk | contribs) (77,968 bytes) (Brian and Roger are still performing as Queen)"

And so is acting in good faith, regardless of socks and whether they are right or wrong, this is a content dispute. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a content dispute, not vandalism. Claiming vandalism does not help resolve disagreements on content. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

My AGF ran out 4 years ago. Trolls are trolls no matter how hard they try to lie in their edit summaries. This is where Wikipedia suffers from the loss of Scarian and his monsterous admin balls and zero tolerance for trolls. VirtualSteve covers his beat now. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding your comments at Escape Orbit's talk page, please conduct yourself in a more civil manner, if you read Wikipedia:3rr you can see it states: "Exceptions by content type: Reverting obvious vandalism" this is not "obvious vandalism" it is a content dispute, it's to late to revert your violation, but please steer clear of the page, thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

If you can't WP:AGF I suggest you do not try and revert other users edits at all Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I have oddles of AGF for valid users. Trolls, vandals, soapboxers and pov pushers do not get any from me, nor have they for several years. After 700000 edits there are certain editor qualities that just don't deserve the GF. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

??? Can you point out where I wasn't civil? I offered him assistance in understanding a policy that he is missing a bit on. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I maybe misconstrued it as patronising, sorry Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:27, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Also removing his/her comment is not helpful: 1 Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:28, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some guidance on policy. What is not vandalism. "Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate, but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia, and improve it rather than vandalize. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, ensure that it is, and/or discuss its factuality with the user who has submitted it."

The issue of sockpuppets is another thing entirely, and doesn't explain your initial edit warring with 04parrw. Hope this clarifies things for you. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Therein lies the error again. An rvv of the addition of false content is nt an edit war. It is a req'd contribution. Good faith went out the window when the user re-added their false content for the 20th time in the past week (using numerous IPs and at least 2 accounts) Trolls who ignore warnings about adding false content... and continue to re-add the same content... do not deserve the AGF as requested in wp:notvan. Again, I can assist anytime. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

This makes no difference to your violation of the 3rr, I suggest you open a sock case on the user, and in future be extremely careful not to get on the wrong side of policy again, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't vio 3RR. 3RR doesn't count on vandalism. And sock reports take too much time and end up in the hands of an admin with no balls (about 95% of them) I blurbed a note off to Virty-Steve and ill get on the admin chat line and see if any one is around. Cheers. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see it, the factual accuracy of it is a matter of opinion as neither version are supported by adequate cites. So it remains a content dispute. Naturally sockpuppets are never acceptable, but this is what results from long term edit warring on both sides, with no effort from either to seek consensus. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19

Wiki lib, you need to understand that this is a content dispute not vandalism, I trust that if you bring this to the attention of any additional admins you will also direct them to this talk page, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, I am now logging out for the night, any additional comments should be directed at my talk page, but I feel that we have taken this issue as far as it is going to go, all the best Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wiki libs. You have new messages at VirtualSteve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--VS ^talk 02:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

hi there

do you have specific objection to the reference i provided? 93.86.201.173 (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Megadeth, hard rock

I'm looking for a discussion with you about the hard rock genre in Megadeth. Why do you want it included so badly? Megadeth is no hard rock band. Majestic122 (talk) 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CON. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:CON actually encourages us to discuss about this. It does not, though, grant you the right to claim something you have no evidence for: WP:CITE, WP:V. "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Majestic122 (talk) 15:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Challenged applies to controversial material related to WP:BLP issues. This is a non-controversial text that has been discussed and a clear majority of editors in favour keeping the text. The only thing left to decide in the curent discussion is whether or not to delete 'speed metal'. The leaning consensus is to delete it. But it is not a clear consensus as it is with the other text. I lean towards deleting it. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

If you actually read the content of my previous messages, you would have noticed that I didn't use WP:CITE as a foundation for reversion, but that you clearly didn't use WP:CITE as a reason to include the information in this discussion. Added to that, WP:V is one of Wikipedia's content standards. Where's the WP:V in the article? Furthermore, WP:EW tells us "If someone challenges your edits, discuss it with them and seek a compromise". You haven't come up with some arguments for which hard rock should be added. Please enlighten me, for the Megadeth I know has made thrash/heavy metal music, not hard rock. I agree with you that speed metal is also debatable, but the term speed metal is used (more than once, I believe) by independant VH1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gSkpwrT4ks. Also, since when is Wikipedia democratic? If that was the case, we'd have WP:SOCK in a short amount of time. Majestic122 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't own a single one of their records, nor can summon enough guts to read the article, but I did search it for cites, look at the first one. Read the first line of the article being cited.--Alf ^melmac 15:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see. Fair enough, although I still don't agree, if some professional guy says it's hard rock, then I guess it is. Majestic122 (talk) 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Alfred thou art so observant. TY! The Real Libs-speak politely 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Alf ^melmac 16:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

67.242.56.62 3RR

Are you making a 3rr report, or shall I? This isn't this guy's first tango with ANB (or blatant genre warring). --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 17:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't do 3RR reports... they are a pain in the ass to fill out. I reported the IP directly to an admin. In the meantime you should count your own reverts on the pages in question as you yourself have exceeded 3 and therefore will likely get the block-hammer as well. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

*shrug* We'll see. That'd be disappointing. --Kingoomieiii ♣ Talk 17:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

MusicMight and WP:RS

Hello,

You made this edit to List of progressive metal artists on the 8th of April. I am curious as to your rationale regarding whether MusicMight could be considered a reliable source. On one hand, it is a self-published source, but such is the nature of the internet (IGN.com is certainly a reliable source for video game news, but they have only once ventured into print and learned their lesson rather quickly). Given that MusicMight is a notable website and a project of a known expert in the field, I would have to say that it is reliable as a self-published source by a published expert in the field which is acceptable under WP:SPS guidelines. Since I'm sure you have a different opinion, what do you think? 128.61.33.213 (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion at wp:rs noticeboard. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Seaching the board earlier, I found 4 references. The only which offered any kind of guidance was here. I believe I discussed that point already; is there a different discussion I have missed? 128.61.33.213 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Epiphone dot

Why are you insisting in deleting the list of known famous users? -- Mecanismo | Talk 19:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

What you said doesn't make any sense. You claim you deleted references to notable users to avoid "personal fanboi favourites" from being added but yet at the same time you include an article which is also a "personal fanboi favourites", with the added problem of being largely irrelevant to the article being added. So, as you already stated that the artists you eliminated are in fact accepted by the so called Guitarist Project, once again can you point out a valid reason to eliminate that entry? -- Mecanismo | Talk 20:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you stop with the condescending speak. Secondly, as the players mentioned in the article appear to be listed in the broader category then there is absolutely no notability issues where you can base yourself to delete that information. Thirdly, the article is about all things related to a specific guitar model, which means that you should not force anyone to comb through a large and generally unrelated article just to get to the information that is already contained in the article. So once again I ask: can you point out a valid reason to eliminate that entry?

The valid reason is that it is consensus. Wikipedia is built on consensus. Read WP:CON for more info. Hope that helps. Also, good work on the other guitar articles you've been doing repair work to other guitar articles. Have a nice day. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

British Isles/North America

So, are you telling me that it is okay to say:

"The name of the band are Thin Lizzy"

In the British Isles?

That is like nails on the blackboard to me.

> Best O Fortuna (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Group names are taken as plural. Take your wording "The name of the band"... and think 'they'. So your non-fingernail version would be "They is Thin Lizzy." Only the U.S. uses the singular group form in their regular speech. The rest of the world uses group nouns as plural. Your section heading should have read "Britsh Isles/Unitied States" Because Canada uses the correct form of English as well. Hope that helps. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please understand when I scowl at your use of the term "correct" and point you at Dialect. American english maintains that the 'correct' phrasing is "The name of the band is Thin Lizzy." When speaking of the members themselves, "They are Thin Lizzy" remains appropriate. If one wished to remark on the band as a whole, "Thin Lizzy is great" would certainly be used. --King ♣ Talk 20:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

And never the twain shall meet... Haha.. anyway, I thought the UK was the 51st state, now it's Ontario?? We British have slipped... ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I would think that "the band" is they, but the "name of the" is singular. Maybe Quebec is right? They don't want to speak English at all. Of course I sometimes feel that the U.S. should have kept Canada after 1812 and Mexico after 1841. Then what would the map of North America look like now? Imagine if the U.S. border went from the Queen Elizabeth Islands to Guatemala? (It would be easier to control that southern border!)

You're telling me... we could jackknife an 18-wheeler (*cough*... "Lorry") across the one road and be done with it. But I'm not sure a single country can handle that kind of climate contrast border-to-border... --King ♣ Talk 20:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In that sentence, the subject is "the name of the band" -> the name, which is singular under either grammatical standard. "The name of the band is Thin Lizzy" is correct. The difference comes about in the following: "Thin Lizzy are a band" is the British version. Luminifer (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The Sig Issue

...I wasn't trying to stir shyte! We have an RFC on Docu, and another discussion on ANI that already was discussing someone's sig...it was the first time I had ever seen the code of your sig, and it just raised my eyebrows based on the above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(PS: Don't get me started on the immediately above dicussion...I'm a Canadian journalist, and refuse to pander to US English LOL. When you say "the name of the band...", the verb has to refer to the object "name", therefore use "is". When you say "Thin Lizzy is great", you're really doing a shortened form of "Thin Lizzy is a great band", and thus singular. However, you can say "Thin Lizzy are great", because you are effectively saying "The members of Thin Lizzy are great when they play together as a collective". Bah @ grammar...that's why I have an editor!) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Lynyrd Skynyrd

Hi there. I noticed you've reverted several edits by IP users the last few days. As far as I can tell, the information was all accurate, and your edit summaries made no mention of your specific objections to the material. Whenever you get a minute, would you mind letting me know what your concerns were with those changes? Thanks. — Bdb484 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sleaze rock redirect-issue

Hi. Sleaze rock redirects to Glam metal. But where i live Sleaze rock is more akin to Trash rock & Punk blues than any kind of metal or hard-rock. So yesterday i wrote a disambig (see below). But within no time it was undone, and redirected to Glam metal again. why?

Sleaze rock may refer to:

• a hard-rock sub-genre with emphesis on theatrical appearance (tight pants, transvestite hair-do), also known as hair metal or glam metal, and related to glam rock, glitter rock, or tinseltown rock
  
• a garage rock sub-genre, combining punk-rock with rhythm 'n' blues, (hence sometimes called punk blues), with emphesis on sex, booze and rock 'n' roll
  

Mirrormundo (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I take it then that your redirect was unsourced. Regardless of how good a page looks or sounds, if the information contained is not verifiable, out it goes. I notice you mention that the definition of Sleaze Rock is different where you live. It's possible that this is a colloquial misunderstanding of the term 'Sleaze Rock', and as such is not notable enough to warrant a blocking redirect to serve a single community. Every page I've seen so far refers to sleaze rock as various types of hair metal or glam rock. Find a reliable source that says otherwise, talk it out on the talk page, and THEN change it. Refer to WP:BRD. --King ♣ Talk 14:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Freddie Mercury

IP 78.30.173.53 is constantly reverting the page to include Freddie's voice type as "Leggerio Tenor." Not only is this the WRONG vocal type, I am not going to edit the voice type because you had made an edit saying that his vocal type had to be sourced. Freddie's voice matches the "Heldentenor" description dead-on but again, I'm not going to change it. I'm going to revert the IP's edits back to your version. If the problem persists, I'll leave an additional message or report the IP.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. I got the problem fixed.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that "Wikipedia Mirror" reference. Now I know!--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Allen Collins

Hello, I really appreciate you trying to help me make Allen's page better. I will work on finding those sources. I'm sure there must have been something published about that Explorer in Guitar World or similar. Would a newspaper article about a Roll For Rock event be of any use? Allen and Bill held one in '89, and Roll For Rock has held an event annually since Allen passed. As far as non-profit goes, some of the money generated goes to the Allen Collins Trust to help his children, so does that mean that Wikipedia will not publish information about Roll For Rock? Most of the money goes towards regional wheelchair games and to preparing paralympians for the games. Please let me know. Thanks again, I really do appreciate your time and input. R4Rvolunteer99.251.239.188 (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)R4Rvolunteer (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Hannon

This is a well respected member of the band Tesla. He is performing for more than twenty years, playing with impressive number of versatile artists. There is a lemma about Frank Hannon and Tesla. So why did you remove my addition of Frank Hannon to the List of Gibson players? greetings Paulus 2 (talk) 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed as per the article lead-in criteria. The Real Libs-speak politely 23:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Nickelback

Why did you revert my edits to the albums, Nickelback is deffinately NOT Pop Rock. there is a huge difference between Nickelback and Pop Rock. The Jonas Brothers, Hanna Montana, and Weezer are pop rock, Nickelback is the total oposite. My edits where removing pop rock as a genre from all their albums, so why did you revert my edits, thus re-adding pop rock to their genre listings? Just wondering, because I don't want to get into an edit war. Altenhofen 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles, The Who and The Kinks are all pop rock I would've guessed that you would want your favourite band to share such good company. The reason that pop rock is valid in the box is because it has a citation. Wikipedia is not about personal opinion. It is about verifiability and consensus. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Altenhofen, please find and cite reliable sources when changing genres. Going off your opinion from listening to tracks is "original research" and it's not allowed on Wikipedia, see WP:OR. We only report what has already been published in reliable verifiable published sources. Sarah 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not original research, and it isn't pov either. Why isn't pop rock in the bands infobox, and where is the citation?Altenhofen 20:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Its the AMG link. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gotica socks

Shnagles contacted me by email and asked to be given another chance. He says he's not Gotica and that he has no other accounts on WP. I checked his IP and, for what it's worth, it's on a completely different range to Gotica. He's agreed to some conditions, that he won't edit war and if his edit gets reverted, he will find a RS and discuss it with the other user instead of revert warring. I will try to keep an eye on things generally but if there's any more problems please give me a ping. I suggested to Shnagles that concerned editors have a discussion about the genres generally and reach some agreement about sourcing them as few of them seem to be sourced and some people seem to be trying to change the genres based on their own opinion from listening to the tracks (WP:OR) (as I see above!). Anyway, just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Sarah 06:56, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not being lazy, looking for expert help

Libs, I just noticed an error in a Neil Young related article that needs fixing but I can't decide how to solve the problem with a redlink. In The Jades, the sentence at the end of the first history paragraph reads: "It was there that he met Ken Koblun, later to join him in the Esquires, and there that he formed his first band the Jades." The link is piping to The Squires, incorrect, also wrong in the Jades infobox. So, I wanted to fix it but can't decide on a proper redlink title suggestion, i.e. The Squires (Neil Young), The Squires (Canadian band), The Squires (Manitoba band), etc. There is also a dab page to consider, The Squires (disambiguation). Can you please lend a hand and fix this from your more northern, expert perspective? Thanks – Sswonk (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring ip spammer

Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM#metal-observer.com

Do you think it would be worthwile to have this site blacklisted? Triplestop x3 18:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Certainly. It has failed as a source at the WP:RS noticeboard. The Wiki-article for the website was also AfD'd as it was determined to be an amateur fansite run by a carpet salesman. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Hi.

I would like to know why you reverted my edits on Sacred Reich's page. Th firs ime tha you done i, I putted a reliable source on that page.

Bye. (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC))

Your edit ignores the standard formatting for inboxes established by the musician project. It also ignore a standard Wiki WP:MOS practice not to link common words. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Queen discography

I've reverted your removal of the Q+PR material from the discography for now for a couple of reasons.

• Firstly, this topic did come up some months ago and nobody seemed particularly bothered about it's in/exclusion.
• Secondly, and in my view most importantly, if the Q+PR stuff is removed then it will certainly reappear under a separate Q+PR discography which will be so small as to eventually be the subject of a merge request back into the main Queen discography.
• Thirdly, as I said at the time of the last discussion, they have deliberately not positioned themselves as a new band - the focus has always been that this is Queen (or what's left of them) with a guest singer.

Well, just my thoughts anyway. Thanks! Aula^TPN 07:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

They are a separate act with their own articles for album details. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The metal observer

I have proposed that it be blacklisted: [17]

Have you spotted any other IPs spamming this link lately? Triplestop x3 17:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Did I do something wrong in these edits? [18] [19] As they were compliant with MOS, I have reinstated them. Please use an edit summary to explain why you reverted in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Liar

Why you reverted my edit in article Liar (Queen song)? Do you realy mean so genre of this is not heavy metal?--Ole Førsten (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this one is a disaster. Another invading Russian who knows all rules.

I blocked an old friend. This one could be headed for another block, given past abuse. Eta: Tan blocked it for six months. :) Two down, a lot more genre trolls to go. Enigma^msg 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

... when you have a minute ...

hope you're well & prospering, and that i can barge in with a request: the IP in this section of Keith's talk page has made some unsourced statements that seem to me contentious/inappropriate enough to be removed under WP:BLP#Non-article_space. but since the IP seems to view me as an adversary i'd rather not make matters worse by deleting the inappropriate stuff from the talk page myself. can you help out? it's the parenthetical rubbish about Charlie in the middle of his july 26th post - i really think that needs to be removed ... thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

My Articles

I can understand why you would question Rime of the Ancient Mariner's notability, but "Criminally Insane" was a single and had notability. So why did you change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Ancyent Marinere (talk • contribs) 19:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey

While I have your attention (do I still have your attention?), do you know any scarrian-esque admins currently awake? I'd love to have User talk:67.242.56.62 stopped as quickly as possible, and the original blocker, Tanthalas39, hasn't been on all day. --King ♣ Talk 19:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh Scarian! I do miss that fella terribly. King, while I am not Libs I shall reply in his place, Scarian basically taught User:Enigmaman everything he knows so he's the next best admin. 86.3.61.125 (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha. Well, most of the things... Enigma^msg 05:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

So MO has now been blacklisted, I wonder what that troll will do now? Triplestop x3 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Good news. Now if we could only just get metal-archives.com BL'd... we could eventually re-path all Wikipedia heavy metal articles towards proper/reliable sources... not just amateur online fanzines. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I was looking at this yesterday. I did this search. It's actually scary the task at hand. Do you realise how many times MO is cited in the body of the article?! Not just the review section, the actual body. Unpick that lot! Sheesh! – B.hotep •talk• 17:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I've seen that. Its always good to base trustworthy information in an encyclopedia on the opinions of an 18 year old who lives with his grandmother and works part time at a local Denny's. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that it's been like it for a while, and when that happens people fall into the trap of "oh well, it must be OK to do it then". Still needs weeding out though. I'd rather have no reviews than a 100% from Satanscock777 – "cuz it fuk'n rockz, dood". – B.hotep •talk• 18:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Now just think ahead to the monumental task it will be to blacklist metal-archives.com and remove all of those foolish amateur links... *sigh*.... 10 years from now 14 years olds will still be using low class metal webzines for references on Wikipedia.(if Wikipedia still exists) Oh well. Todays target is the dreaded chronicalesofchaos.org. Less than 200 of them. Not near as daunting a task. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Need your input

[20] Enigma^msg 05:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

{{tb}} --King ♣ Talk 13:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Singer-Songwriter

Why did you remove my contribution to this page. It was well said and true--Petergriffin9901 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My revert was to rm the Jonas Brothers trolling add-in but popup tool grabbed wrong date revision to go to. Slip of the mouse/touchpad. Happens sometimes. No big whoop. Your edit was valid enough... just correct it. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

a good read

hello Wiki libs - thought you might find this article from Performing Songwriter interesting - it's about Carla Olson, and includes some very cool bits about her work with Mick Taylor, Eric Clapton et al. warning: that's a link to a fan forum where someone posted a scan of the article, but ... it's a cool article anyway 8) enjoy it! Sssoul (talk) 17:29, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

glad that grooved you! there's an Alan Rogan interview from 1986 on this page here - you gots to scroll down a bit, and you may need to download it to get it in a legible size. is that the interview you mean? Sssoul (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

nope, i don't seem to have that one! i'll keep an eye out for it, though ... Sssoul (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Link

[21] Enigma^msg 03:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: User_talk:Enigmaman#When_you.27re_about_part_XXVII

The IP returned after the block. I'm a little uncertain, though. Is this the same guy? Did his editing patterns change? Enigma^msg 07:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

100% sure it is the same person. It's all articles related to three or four subjects, such as Down (band) and the people surrounding the band, Metallica, certain tv series and wrestling. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Fer sure. Scarian and I just called him ol' 90.X. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked. Wanted to make sure I wasn't getting the wrong guy. Enigma^msg 17:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

sigh

when you can, please help out with this ... thanks ... Sssoul (talk) 10:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback1

{{talkback}} King Öomie 15:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverted?

First of all, why has post-grunge been added with no proof, I am trying to revert it back. And I understand about the logos, but can we keep the genres into a list? Bugboy52.4 | =-= 03:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please, before you keep changing it back to what Altenhofen, with no proof. Bugboy52.4 | =-= 22:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

eyes needed ...

... some ongoing problems on this page are now leaking onto this one - the user seems immune, and although a novice mediator has offered to intervene, i have doubts that that's what's needed here. i'm getting a little desperate, so ... any ideas? (please reply here, not on my page, okay?) thanks Sssoul (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was only on for a few brief minutes this morn. WHen I return to work tomorrow I will be sure to monitor and comment closely when required. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

thank you kindly for that Sssoul (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

CosmicLegg

You're not making the brightest decisions yourself, hurling insults and making demands. WP:CIVIL --King Öomie 15:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Speak politely. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd highly advise you calm down and stop insulting other editors, before you find yourself blocked. Libs freely admits editing from those IPs, so "notorious" is hardly the correct word. And just a question, how truthfully do you think most puppetmasters are going to answer the question "Hey, are you a puppetmaster"? What kind of communication could you possibly want? --King Öomie 17:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Too much IP volume. Not enough IP sorryness. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should I be sorry? Do you think perhaps that you should be sorry? After all, your allegation is quite a lot of "volume" on my talk page. It's the only thing on my talk page. Can't get much louder than that. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Communication would be appreciated before launching a nonsense accusation, because I could have easily demonstrated that it was nonsense with the edit histories. I suppose I've been having an edit war with myself? This accusation is utter nonsense. CosmicLegg even reverted me on Queen's page right here. My edit stood because I'm right and he's wrong. And now Kingoomieiii is threatening me with a block because I'm upset over a false accusation? As if my annoyance isn't justified? It's perfectly justified. How would you like it? These lousy editor cliques are the worst thing about Wikipedia. Now how much longer am I going to have to have this ridiculous allegation on my discussion page? 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Insulting people, on their own talk pages no less, gets you blocked. That's not a threat. Your annoyance is justified. Your expression of it is not.

And in the real world, you're allowed to assist someone without belonging to a clique. You know, just FYI. --King Öomie 18:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusing me of being CosmicLegg is the equivalent of an insult. Fine, I apologize for calling Wiki libs an idiot. I'm also sorry I put it on his talk page. I'd appreciate an apology from him for his accusation, which is still on MY talk page. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You needn't have responded to me at all. If the template was in error all you had to do was remove it. Rather than go through all this uncivil drama foolishness. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Really? According to your compadre, King Oomie, "Sockpuppet notifications are not to be removed until a Checkuser rules on the issue." That's what he put on my talk page. Since you're the reason for the allegation on my talk page, I think it would be better if you were the one to remove it. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There are only three types of messages that a user should not remove: declined unblock requests while the block is still in effect, confirmed sockpuppetry notices, and shared IP header templates for unregistered editors. These templates are intended not only to communicate with the user in question but also to communicate with others.

-WP:DRC. In this instance, I interpreted "Confirmed" to include notices that hadn't actually been checked by anyone. And your sarcastic use of familial terms is not appreciated. And excuse my cynicism, but by "better", I believe you mean "more vindicating for me". --King Öomie 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a very odd interpretation of "Confirmed". In fact, some would say that notices that haven't been checked by anyone are the opposite of "confirmed". In other words, that they are "unconfirmed". You may interpret "better" however you like. I acknowledge your lack of appreciation for my sarcastic use of the word "compadre". I was just looking at Wiki libs contributions to The Who. He made them right in the middle of my edit war with CosmicLegg, which just makes his accusation all the more bizarre. Or perhaps it shows just how little thought he put into his accusation. An accusation he has yet to apologize for. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 19:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a bad call. Thanks for breaking it down so succinctly. I recalled reading that snippet of policy some weeks back, apparently not 100% accurately. It's like that game Telephone, but with the various voices in my head.

I doubt you'll be receiving an apology. You have all the tools you need to let this end, and here you are. --King Öomie 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Kingoomieiii isn't my compadre. I am his chauffeur, gardener and temporary beekeeper (until he finds someone else who will work for the low wages he offers) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

For the yardwork yesterday. Don't spend it all in once place!

Oooo a shiny penny!!! Is a Yankee penny worth anything anymore? I will out it in my piggy bank right away. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

£0,00604997278!

Edit- dammit, the whois on that IP comes back Canadian... but it's funny that you'd say that, because the US dollar is actually worth more than CDN again! --King Öomie 19:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

When did that happen??? I thought Obammi was still tanking everything in sight. I predicted he would be drummed out on a log as a complete failure by May. He has proven to be a complete failure... but I am still waiting for his log run. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, that's funny. We actually agree on Obama. I wonder if we have any more common ground. I've been interacting with you on Wikipedia for years. Haven't been much of a fan. You like to be a stickler. That I don't mind. I like being a stickler, too. But you appear to be selective in your sticklerness. It seems to me that the very same faults that you like to point out in articles on The Who, for example, you excuse in articles on, say, Led Zeppelin. I'd have more respect for you if your edits didn't seem so biased. There is plenty of improperly sourced content in Led Zeppelin's article. Right in the lead, actually. How about unleashing the old over there? My biggest pet peeves are the worldwide sales claims infecting so many articles. I fought like heck to get the 300 million figure out of Led Zeppelin's article. You fought me on that, with the help of MegX, one of the most notorious puppet masters ever. Eventually I threw in the towel, but it looks like others have taken up the cause. I also fought to get such figures tossed out of The Who's article (until someone found that bloody New York Times article), AC/DC's, Deep Purple's, Queen's (just went back to that recently and CosmicLegg tried to revert me), and others. I'm about to take a blowtorch to Elton John's discography. It's loaded with unsourced worldwide sales figures. So, tell you what, you be a stickler on Led Zeppelin's page for awhile and I'll happily appreciate you keeping the editors of The Who's page honest. It only makes the article better. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MegX Should not have sock'd where consensus/voting was req'd. But as far as content she/he was very good at just plain ol' editing. At the same time MegX and I disagreed like night and day over certain content too. I am not a stickler on any page because I do not hawk full article's... just recent changes/potential V/soapboxing/crufting etc. Lots of stuff slips by me... because I have a life. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

MegX was horrible. A total Led Zeppelin sycophant. She/he faked consensuses with numerous sock puppets and deserves to be banned for it. MegX should not have socked period, forget the consensus/voting caveat! There is no good reason to create multiple accounts. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The US Dollar passed the Canadian dollar most recently on 6/4/08, and hasn't fallen below it since. It had risen and dipped for several months before then. I'll reserve comment on Obama, as I honestly don't care, but I agree that socking under any circumstance is a violation of WP:SOCK and is as such a blockable offense. Seems we're all sticklers. --King Öomie 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I never said socking was good. I simply said that when MegX edited (key word 'edit') as just MegX... adding cited content, copyediting etc... she was OK. She may have violated WP:SOCK which is bad... but when she behaved she never violated WP:MOS, WP:NOR, WP:AWW or WP:NPOV. More than can be said about many editors. Hell... more than can be said about 95% of the admin here too. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not my experience with MegX. She could not be impartial when it came to Led Zeppelin. At all. But nothing tops the time she accused me of using sock puppets. What a gigantic hypocrite. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean like when you occasionally login as User:Clashwho? The Real Libs-speak politely 16:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. That's for when I'm editing semi-protected pages that require logging in to edit. I never use it to gang up on people or to reinforce my opinions with a false second individual, which MegX did to me in the Led Zeppelin discussions. I prefer the anonymity of an IP address. I'm sure you of all people understand that, since it used to be your claim to fame. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

DEATH TO SOCKS, AND ALL SOCK SYMPATHIZERS! FOR THE WIKIIIIIIIII --King Öomie 13:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah-hahahaha! Amen, brother. 74.73.110.46 (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Overlinked

As part of my regular wikignoming, I removed over 150 internal links from Gorgoroth. And I removed the overlinked template. Please have a look to see if you agree with that assessment. If you happen to disagree, I'd appreciate it if you would remove those internal links you consider superfluous, rather than just tag the article again. Thank you, Debresser (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work. It looked foolish before. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As per your request I had a look at Stevie Ray Vaughan. I deleted almost a hundred internal links. And still there might be a few more that could actually be removed. But the worst ones are gone now. Debresser (talk) 10:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from Polka Floyd

Hello Wiki libs, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Polka Floyd has been removed. It was removed by 199.213.163.69 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 199.213.163.69 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 23:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

queen - the cosmos rocks

hi why did you delete the cosmos rocks? it is still a queen album ist queen featuring paul rodgers here is an interview with rodger tailor where he says its queen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQGd-Od3EvI if you get a chance take a listen at about 1:50, thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.88.234 (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Admiship

Have you thought about an RFA? --King Öomie 12:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I have been asked that question about 2 dozen times. Yes it would be an awesome upturn for Wikipedia. But no I don't wish to go that route. I just want to be a boring old normal guy editor type. Besides, if I were an admin I would probably delete a million articles in my first week and then I would block 95% of the current wiki-admin roster because, for the most part, they are all just a bunch of useless/whiny/wheel-spinners. And then I would just get de-sysop'd for trying to clean out the waste. And then I'd be back to were I am right now. Thanks for the thought though.... 25 ding! The Real Libs-speak politely 13:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Good attitude! :P --King Öomie 13:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't lose any sleep over the Wik. I used to edit a lot even in my spare time. Recent personal losses made me reflect a lot on things and the Wik is more like an office hours novelty. I basically just look for single purpose accounts and personal agendas that work toward weakening the project and rv back to discussed/agreed-on versions of things. I've done many-a featured article in my day... but can't recall doing one in the past year... so my own bad habit... lethargy/non-enthusiasm hold me back from being as productive as I used to be. Every now and then i get bored and just start doing old fashion category cleanup and article classifications and other tedium that no one wants to take the time to do... all done quietly and anonymously of course... but those days are limited to usually one or two per week. I love those types of "non-glory" days when I can do about 1000 quality cleanup edits in a day and no one takes notice at all. Everyone should take a day like that every now and then. Just start looking for unclassified music pages and start updating their talk page templates with realistic article classes and see how many hundred pages you can quietly get through before someone comes along and punches you with a "Welcome To Wikipedia... Get an Account and you'll be respected" message. Fun times. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Libs, according to your user page, it should be 0.65%ers. (11/1680) :P – B.hotep •talk• 14:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback2

{{talkback}} {{tb}} --King Öomie 15:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Eric Clapton sound files

Hi, problems with their copyright status, in particular the fact that 12 are used in the article, and that there's precious little supporting description in the article text. Are you able to help with determining which ones (probably four) should stay? Tony (talk) 14:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you undo my work?

I see no reason for you to have undone my work on thrash metal's history. Regardless of your opinion of allmusic or the songs that I had mentioned on that page, you can't deny they have both been credited as precursors to the genre. 01:10, 31 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockgenre (talk • contribs)

Joe Perry

I have the same question on the Joe Perry page. Please provide a reason. FearNotMan (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The guitarists sons are non-notable and off subject. If they are worthy of being mentioned on Wikipedia then feel free to make an article about them. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The section is about Joe Perry's family. They were already listed in the section. The fact that they are carrying on the family legacy of being musicians is relevant. My edit linked directly to the TAB the Band wikipedia page which is full of citations. FearNotMan (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hello, Wiki libs. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Ugh, fine time to go on vacation. I've got your back (to the extent that policy allows :P) --King Öomie 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi - I have noticed that you do a lot of reverts on pages that I also watch. When you do this, unless it is truly blatant vandalism, and no just a badly placed non-NPOV, confused fact, or violation of established rules on that page, could you please try and put in edit summaries, to make life easier for the rest of us who also watch that page? It may also reduce the number of people visiting your talk page asking "why did you revert my edit?"... It just seems like a polite, good faith kind of thing to do. (This is something we should all try and do more, not just you. It's just that you do a lot of revisions that I have to go through and think about!) Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

/agree with this. Sometimes I revert gwarrior edits without a summary, but I always leave a uw-genre2 on the user's page in that case, and I've yet to have an editor asking me why I reverted them (well, except for ol' 67, who's been blocked for like 3 months now for edit-warring genres and STILL doesn't understand why). --King Öomie 17:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I am only online for a brief minute. As I have stated many times before. I use edit summaries and issue messages(or warnings) for the ones who deserve them. I do not send messages/warnings or expand on boilerplates for those editors who are fly-bys who don't deserve one or will not read/heed what I wrote anyways.. so I do not waste my time. I used to to that years ago... it didn;t work... not worth getting back into a bad habit. I will speak to this further (or not :-D ) when I return. After so many days away from a keyboard this was already WAY too much typing over the issue. Cheers!... Its Saturday night.. go have a tall stiff drink or 2 with friends! The Real Libs-speak politely 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The edit summaries are not necessarily for their benefit (though you should AGF in prinipal - that's another issue) but for our benefit as well. Luminifer (talk) 06:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Problems!!

Extended content

You have serious issues. Whatever agenda you had with me (formerly The Source of Wiki Power) thats were it should have stayed. I saw and read how you ran and whored yourself to several admins and other people to get me screwed. Yes I was a sockpuppet with three accounts and I payed me debt to Wikipedia. Let me say that again I paid my debt to Wikipedia. The three accounts I worked on now blocked. Ok whatever but since you had a blindless rage you and King Oomie whatever assumed that ITalkTheTruth, and Kelvin Martinez was mine as well. Two different users who didnt start on the same day as you guys were saying. Sad. They were here long before me. Ohh is to strange for you to comprehendend. You been here so long you cant even realize that we all shared the same IP because we live in the same house but you believed were the same people. Even though were not. Know what your talking about before you make asssumptions warrior. "Did You see how I mentioned The IP address," thats what you said while you were bragging to your bff's. I can just tell your immature and you need to grow up. Its sad. Its good you took break you need it. It doesnt matter if you been here for years, a person like you should be helping others not trying to bully and use your connections to get innocent people unecassarily blocked instead of the one who really deserved it me. Its Sad your life is probably wikipedia thats cool everybody has there own thing. I hope you get some manners especially the way you spoke about me sometimes. Now this is to you and only you. I stepped and told you how I felt like a man should. Whenever you come back you should step up like a man and discuss how you feel. I told lets talk and work things before but you didnt have the decentcy to do it. I hope that changes. Let me say again I paid my debt to Wikipedia. So if you or King oomie, or someone King oomie knows, same with b hotep OR HU, or Nishkid or someone he knows try to kick me off or block me for trying to have a discussion you with I will report all you guys for harassment, OR ADMINSTRATIVE harrassment and I mean it. This not no second grade terminology this is real talk. So step up and be a man if you can and discuss whats your problem with me and how we ALL CAN WORK IT. LET ME SAY THAT AGAIN, SO WE ALL CAN WORK IT OUT, SO WE ALL CAN WORK IT OUT, ONE MORE TIME.. SO WE ALL CAN WORK IT OUT. Maybe you'll try to work it out, or maybe you and your BFFs will probably say something random and go your own way and talk about me behind my back like little kids if so thats fine. But I want to wrok things out so I can learn. So what do you want to do? THIS DISCUSSION IS FOR WIKI LIBS AND ONLY HIM PLEASE DONT ANSWER FOR HIM OR DELETE. HAVE SOME RESPECT AND LET TWO PEOPLE NOT 3 4 OR 5 WORK IT OUT. I HATE BEING A PARROT BUT LET ME SAY IT AGAIN..THIS DISCUSSION IS FOR WIKI LIBS AND ONLY HIM PLEASE DONT ANSWER FOR HIM OR DELETE. HAVE SOME RESPECT AND LET TWO PEOPLE NOT 3 4 OR 5 WORK IT OUT The Magical Source (talk) 23:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC) A sockpuppet with three accounts is a sockpuppet nonetheless. Whether you are the other two or not – irrelevant. Blocked as such. – B.hotep •talk• 23:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Also, see here – B.hotep •talk• 08:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

LInks in Jimi H

Hi, you've relinked "Musician, songwriter, producer". Are these unusual terms that readers would not understand? Are the target articles going to increase the readers' understanding of JH? I doubt it. Please see WP:LINK. Tony (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Wicked Lester

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Wicked Lester/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

*Wave*

--King Öomie 16:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback|Kingoomieiii|Your sig}} King Öomie 18:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar... nice wording. Hopefully going forward we can criticize each other more and more constructively (as we both have very different and probably valid viewpoints on wikipedia stuff) ;) Luminifer (talk) 19:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Can I get rid of the horrendously long thread on my talk page now then, please? – B.hotep •talk• 19:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

But it was so well written? :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 14:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? I guess so, since the other user involved was involved with that particular thread.... Luminifer (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Answer to question 1 = "I take nothing too seriously here... its just a hobby/novelty/coffee-break-indulgence". As for the rest of your post.. ????? its all pops n buzzes. Involved was involved in what sort of involveenesses? The Real Libs-speak politely 14:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Dragonforce

[22]- probably the funniest vandal comment I've seen on there in a long time. Most of them are phallic references, which are so... well, every grade, really, K through graduate school. --King Öomie 16:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if they giggle like little girls after they hit "save page". The Real Libs-speak politely 16:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

...don't you?

I get odd looks when I'm supposed to be working. --King Öomie 16:45, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it because of your uncontrolled "Wiki-facial-expressions" or beause you've worn your salmon pink shirt with the purple polka-dots for the third day in a row? :-D The Real Libs-speak politely 16:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimmy Page and Ramone etc etc

Thats great that you cleaned up the reference a bit, but what I wanted clarified was whether Johnny Ramone, actually stated word for word that he got the technique from Ramone, which I would like Aussie Ausborn to clarify, theres no denieinng that Ramone considered Page an influence, but the technique in question, I wanted that clarified if that was what he was referring to and what the exact quote supposedly from Johnny Ramone's mouth was... The ammendments which i tried to add which some agreed with, were to specifiy he did not want to play like the likes of Beck or Page, and that he cited The Stooges as how he wanted to play... I still feel some of that needs to be clarified, but its good that you cleaned that up a bit.... Still some of what is there is still taboo... Over the actual technique... and maybe u could have added a direct statement citing Ramone said his inspiration and that sentence stating his the greatest might have neturality issues... i don't think i'll contest it though... --DavisHawkens (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DavisHawkens (talk • contribs)

Morning drinky

I assume my talkpage is on your watchlist, so I don't need to spam you with {{tb}} messages? --King Öomie 13:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Spam Barnstar

		The Anti-Spam Barnstar
		Keep up the good work --Hu12 (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

HURRAYYY!!!! Another shiny!!!! Thank you! The Real Libs-speak politely 17:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. If you continue to be so awesome, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Seriously, you're making us all look bad. --King Öomie 18:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK I will retire when I leave the office this afternoon. While I am gone don't forget to revert all changes and speedy delete or AfD at at least 100 pages per day. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Careful with your parting suggestions- someone *cough* may bring them up at WQA! --King Öomie 18:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Only from someone who is completely lacking a sense of humour, can't see/take a good joke, or is completely anally retentive. Now back to work reverting and deleting. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I should probably start with pages you've edited. You know, to give your watchlist a break. Hmmm...

{{db}} --King Öomie 18:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

"Only from someone who is completely lacking a sense of humour, can't see/take a good joke, or is completely anally retentive" my ears are burning... Luminifer (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a cream for that. --King Öomie 12:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

My watchlist has 7,611 articles on it. Do you want a txt copy of it? :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 18:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, mine's only got 426... do you use the extended view, or only the latest revision? --King Öomie 19:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Regular view. I use the popup scripts to just scroll along over top the diffs link to give a quick view of what's been happening in my absense. I can review/revert about 16 hours worth of edits in the time it takes to chug-o-mug a java. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Burzum

Hey Libs. I was wondering why Burzum's name is still in here if there's no source for it and why don't you clear that stuff instead just undoing my edit? Cause I find it pretty funny when I see Burzum's name in Ambient black metal article and I dont see the genre in Burzum's infobox. (the same about White Zombie and Groove metal ).Solino_{the Wolf} 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pain_Hertz#Pain_Hertz --King Öomie 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please

Before violating the WP:AGF guideline and accusing good editors of using multiple accounts, you might want to actually check to see if there are any similarities between the user's edits. You know, I chuckled a bit when part of your message was telling me to stop reverting edits (that are actually clear acts of vandalism, or just outright wrong), because I looked at your contributions, and apart from making up fiction about users you disagree with, your only edits appear to be reverts of other people's edits, which you don't even check yourself - you just use popups.

I have removed the completely erroneous, insulting, and downright stupid "warning" you left on my talk page, as you are clearly in the wrong in this case.

Here's a tip; if you have a content dispute with me, or any other anonymous user, the best course of action is not to blindly revert all of their edits, and make up fallacious claims about using multiple accounts, but to actually discuss on the talk page.

It doesn't hurt to use your brain once in a while. 121.222.179.94 (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Popups provides a context diff, so it's hardly 'blind'. --King Öomie 02:59, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why?

You did not give a reason why the genre of the album was changed back or why the Man on te Silver Mountain page was deleted. Whether you like allmusic or not it was already on the page under reviews and it is used as a source on dozens of wiki pages. At least give a reason if you are going to make such changes. Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Queen

1.What does superfluity/dupes mean? --DavisHawkens (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Superfluous duplication. An article doesn't need to repeat the same information over-n-over. Pretty self-explanatory. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The song is metal.

See "Speed King" talk page.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 02:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GNR

See Guns N Roses talk page.Rockgenre (talk)Rockgenre 19:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey Libsy

Just wanted to say that it's great having you around, dealing with all the notability, MOS, POV edits, vandals, etc. I know it gets tiresome, but keep it up. :-) Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 15:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I quit Wikipedia everyday when I leave my office. :) But I rejoin every time I get back to my desk. Thanks for the oomph! The Real Libs-speak politely 15:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Hello, Wiki libs. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Commented on the one significant thing I could see within the section. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Libs, you do a lot of good for the encyclopedia. I've got your back (a good hundred people have your back), but you aren't beyond reproach. I would highly advise leaving Lumi's identify alone. Yes, he posted it, once, and later removed it- he recently had it oversighted when he realized it was still accessible. I've had my street address spammed around Wiki by a troll, it's nerve-wracking. Google is an amazing tool, but it's also evil, and I frankly feel uncomfortable with the prospect of continuing to deal with his real-word identity (regardless of the relevant WP:COI issue).

I also agree with the WQA on several points- you're notorious for leaving no edit summary on edits that are obviously not vandalism (though not constructive). Using rollback in that fashion is grounds to have it removed. At least leave a note on the user's page, linking to the relevant policy under which they were reverted ("Please see MOS:NOTED"). --King Öomie 13:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to point out I did not use his name after he tried to hide. The fact that he is a member of Pain Hertz is no secret to anyone anymore. But I did not indicate which one. I respect Lumi's dedication to the project. But he is only 20 years old. And suffers from extreme wiki-paranoia (we all have at some point) that there is some sort of grand conspiracy going on... when there obviously isn't. He made all sorts of grand accusations that are either completely false... or completely skewed away from the truth (like all his out-of-context quoting) because of that strong case of Wiki-P. It's like I've told him... this project will drive you nuts unless you approach it with the highest levels of jocularity, sarcasm and oh-wellishness. Re: edit summaries. I have explained before that I leave many edit summaries for those contributors who have either earned it.. or for those who I know will actually read it. Many times I have reverted with a clear edit summary only to have the edit summary ignored. Soapboxers and crufters are a dimi-o-dozen. They rarely get an edit summary from anyone because their purpose here is obvious... they ignore the edit summaries anyway. For XfD's I use Twinkle. When I check the 'notify' box my post crashes(not sure why?... low priority to find out) so I have to un-check it. I only XfD pages every once in a blue moon. (pretty surprising for a staunch deletionist like me... I actually delete very little here) Speedy delete and re-directs are a much faster clean-up for un-required page-wasting. XfD is a last resort because an XfD causes WAY too much wheel spinning. They serve their purpose, obviously, but they do impede other more important work - like vandal hunting, RC patrol or new page patrolling. As for rollback... Yes I have that privilege added to my account. But I think I can count on 1 hand the number of times I've used it. Twinkle is just as powerful so it is my first choice for reverting anything that isn't obvious. And with that... "Pops" reverts the obvious. While I have your attention... re: that email about those 2-3 users who seem so similar... well I received an email from a highly respected admin saying that those similarities had not gone unnoticed by others. As always... Wiki wasn't built in a day... it won't be torn down and rebuilt properly in a day. As with everything else... all in due time. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. I've always found Rollback more convenient than Twinkle's version, because you can use the actual Wikimedia version right from the watchlist. And for the remainder of the WQA, I think it may be best that we converse through email, as apparently anything I say to you will be put on display. --King Öomie 17:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

PUPPIES ARE NICE! -Find THAT questionable. --King Öomie 17:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind transparency. There is no cabal.. but using email about an ongoing discussion relating to a giant slew of false accusations looks all sneaky-sneaky cabaly-cabaly. That being said.. as far as that whole potential sockypuppy-meatypuppy-abouttobepermablocked-thingy and such-n-such... email all you want... or about any other thing for that matter. Even the weather. Here where I live it is 18C, cloudy with a few sunny breaks. It feels a bit muggy.. like it might rain... but there are no rain clouds on the horizon. When I was a teenager (circa early-mid 1970s) I can remember walking to school on October 1 through 2 feet of snow. No snow in this region now until mid-December. I LOVE global warming. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh. I just meant I took offense to my comment being forced into a public forum, when it was obviously directed at you. If I'd intended to post that in front of however many people (and I didn't, because that would seem like scolding), that's what I would have done. But I didn't. --King Öomie 18:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The most important Wikipedia question I can ask in light of all the falsities that have been posted about me (and you) this week... Is it sunny and warm where you live? The Real Libs-speak politely 18:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's getting a little chilly, actually, and we're entering the pre-winter rainy season. Which is exactly how I like it. The less my sweat glands have to exert themselves, the happier I am. I keep thinking about moving to the upper mid-west (oregon, etc) or possible Ireland to live in this weather year-round. --King Öomie 18:55, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

There. I have spun my wheels too much on an already muddy and ancient subject. Time to head to the dog park and let my pups run before it rains. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Using my own to page to RANT about something that makes me boil (well, not really... nothing makes me boil here... but this comes close)

Wikipedia needs a wiki-project to do with knot-tying! A task force from the Scout project maybe?? Hmmm... potential forced interaction with a bunch o BSA's... worth the risk, I say! By this time next year a good knotty task force will be activated. I am teaching my Cub Pack about tripod lashing and the information found here is weak, weak, weak. I have 18 young impressionable Cubs Scouts in my charge... won't someone think of the children and their inability to tie a good knot! :-) I needed a good free-use printable lash handout but no such thing existing here on the Wik. I had to go to ....eeesh Google. EESH! :-) The Real Libs-speak politely 13:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, man, but you've fought too hard. You've scared away all the knot-tying-expert editors- you and your old-boys club. --King Öomie 14:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

mixed emotions

thank you for keeping an eye on that article, Libs - i appreciate it! but please go with your own judgement on it, okay? i'm weary of tangling with that character, and you don't want to be seen fraternizing with an Enemy of the People. (the "mediators" just unceremoniously closing the "mediation process" after basically doing nothing was impressive, huh - i guess the message is "just take it to AN/I" ... live & learn!) Sssoul (talk) 08:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You are hardly that Sssoul. Trust me. Of the hundreds of editors I've met on here you are certainly one of the best. You understand the key aspects of what makes an encyclopaedia article "encyclopaedic"... and your interaction within the community, in spite of soapbox fanboys like 'dog', is perfect. Wiki attracts freaks, losers, a**holes and immature babies like a magnet. Good editors like you just have to remember that the project doesn't improve with editors like them... it only improves with editors like you. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

wow: thank you for the encouraging words - that means a lot! what i mainly meant was that since the soapboxer has accused me of conspiracy, "foul play" and assorted other highjinks just because other editors see the same problems i see, i think it's good to keep it abundantly clear that we're all editing according to our own best judgement. my weary hope is that that might help forestall tiresome reruns of accusations like these or these. but meanwhile, thanks indeed for that very high praise. Sssoul (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is disappointing to see unprofessional communication continue when people are trying to move forward. This is being copied and noted and relayed to relevant others. It is also worth noting that Real continues to make edits without commenting or responding to discussion. This has been noted by at least one other wiki editor in the past. (An aside: It would be interesting for employers to determine the amount of actual work time their employees are devoting to editing on Wiki.)--Smoovedogg (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional??? If you have a way to edit the Wik and get paid for it please let me know. The project owes me oodles of cash for keeping starry eyed fanboys from crufting and ruining pages like the Little Richard article. The Real Libs-speak politely 21:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I have personally participated in making the existing article more accurate. With respect to the aside, librarians, for example, can spend a lot of time editing on wikipedia instead of focusing on the duties that they are paid to perform.--Smoovedogg (talk) 23:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Do librarians do that? I thought they just sat in front of their little narrow file drawers thumbing through endless ranks of 3x5 cards. They worship a great God named Dewey. Oh... and they all wear those black framed glasses that have the strings attached to the sides and the string wraps around behind their necks. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wow, it's almost you! Lol. I guess I shouldn't be surprised by you capitalizing the "g" in god when referring to ol' Mel.--Smoovedogg (talk) 02:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Almost me? I am an Engineer. Are Engineers supposed to look like that too? Oh my... I will have to empty my closet of all my navy blue Dickies pants and Red Mackinaw jackets. The Real Libs-speak politely 14:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Sparky, Johnny and the Glam Rock Crew

I've filed a Sockpuppet investigation against Sparky-x as Johnny123-987's puppetmaster. Never done it before so I've probably cocked it up. Crafty (talk) 13:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Herewith the link - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sparky-x Crafty (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate doing those reports. They should have an auto-script for it. 3RRs also waste too much time. I prefer to look for an active admin buddy and post directly to them... gets things done a lot quicker. When you post those reports an admin has to go in blind and look at all the contributions and blah, blah, blah... wheelspin, wheelspin, wheelspin. It's so nice to be able to just go to an admin directly and say.. hey... see that a**h*le... block 'em. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I used TWINKLE to file the report. I would have caused the Interblahgs to collapse in on 'emselves had I attempted it manually. Toddles seems to have bopped the Sparkly One between the eyes as a vandal. Hopefully they'll cotton on to Johnny-the-Lad. I need a drink. Crafty (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it past 9 AM already? The Real Libs-speak politely 13:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

←It's always past 0900 somewhere. It's just a question of absinthe or rum, really. Also the dupe article speedy was declined by one of our well meaning Admins. To make this clusterfuck complete I've created a parallel AfD thusly Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knock out kaine. Let's see 'em unscramble this noxious omlette! :) Crafty (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I will AGF the declining admin. Perhaps they just stepped out of a freezing cold swimming pool and they are still waiting for their 'common-sense' to drop. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

A note-to-self about veteran editors using false edit summaries

Someday. The Real Libs-speak politely 18:56, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the term "Incorrect edit summaries". WP:MPOV (not a typo) doesn't necessarily mean a given user didn't act with the best intentions. In general, of course. --King Öomie 19:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm guilty of muddling a few recently, but nothing like that. Mixing "unethical" and "maverick" was one I left uncorrected, there might be more I'm not aware of... I do like Bill Hicks but I guess I have to give that with some kind of statement that that is not the current scientific consensus? :p 86.3.142.2 (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hot Space talk page

I left a nice long civil response responding to your comment. :)--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I responded. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I responded again, with another long, detailed, civil response. :)

Isn't it fun having these discussions?--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 03:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the way of the Wik. As long as you don't start using socks and IPs to vandalise my userpage the way you did to User:KnowledgeOfSelf and User:TheRedPenOfDoom and User:FisherQueen we will all get along great. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. THAT stuff is over with. I was a prankster back then--not anymore.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 13:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That is good to know. You have no more warnings. If you slip up... even just a little bit... you're history. So its best to just toe the line and stick with positive contributions. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree, and I'm sorry for the stuff I did in the past. Now I have a new respect for the guidelines/rules and will do nothing but make positive edits. If I have questions, I'll talk to you.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That's what I am here for. If anyone knows how to "do it right" around here, it's me. Ask questions any time you wish. I can answer one of your questions before you even ask it... one question might be... "how do we keep the voice-type field in rock singer infoboxes?" The answer to that question is "they have no place there because valid citations are almost impossible to find." Leave that field for the opera junkies and move on to something more productive. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. So even if the source was from a book, the voice type field is removed? (AKA Freddie Mercury).--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the book and the notability/credibility of the author. The Real Libs-speak politely 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's two sources that I used for his voice: There's his biography written by his friend and writer Peter Freestone, then there's a book from a professional vocal teacher.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 19:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

decent enough. Did you request a ref-review on the article talk page? The Real Libs-speak politely 19:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I did not. About a month back, there was a content dispute over Freddie's voice type (Leggario Tenor, Heldentenor, Baritone, etc)and the only sources used were Youtube clips (that's not reliable enough/bad references). It was ultimately removed due to edit-warring, and I found the "tenor" references using google books. The references stabilized the voice type for awhile, then some user and IPs removed the voice type. I reverted it back, and posted a notice about removing cited information on Freddie's talk page. I didn't request a ref-review because I believed that a source from google books was good enough.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I am a big promoter of books (comes with my line of work) But anyone and his dog can write a book and get published. That is not the be-all-end-all of wp:v... being in print. I have written a couple.. and have had countless research papers published in trade mags. But I dread the thought that something I wrote be used as a reference.(unless my scribblings were supported by someone else's writing related to my field) In my own Wikipedia article (which I did not create nor have I ever edited) I have checked in to make sure none of my publications were ever used as a self-ref. (I hate self-refs) So far, none ever have. If they ever did I would have someone remove them. As long as there is a consensus by other editors to use a ref... then the ref should be passable. The Real Libs-speak politely 00:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the voice type getting removed by IPs, the voice type hasn't met any resistance. One user on the talk page said the reference was fine and agreed with me about "not removing cited info." If someone removes it and escalates into an edit-war situation, I'll post my concerns either on Freddie's talk page, or your page.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Technical Death Metal

The information is unsourced, so why is it a problem that I remove it? Please don't revert my edits just automatically. It is very annoying when anything you do is immediately reverted. 129.128.146.50 (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Check the aricle history. Everyone reverts, not just me. You have not made a good case for deletion yet. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there; note on potential RFC

I'm having some problemswit the list of melodic death metal. Could you have a look at the talk page, as I seem to be struggling to get through the difference between policy and personal opinion to another editor. It's getting somewhat strained, so I'd rather stay out of it before it turns into simply flaming. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA

Hey Libs, I closed the WQA against you early per Stuck, WQA can't do anything. I recommend WP:Truce.--SKATER ^Speak. 01:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a truce from the get-go. I have had more than abundant AGF for several months even though the user kept stalking me and issuing odd personal attacks on seemingly random user-talk pages. I AGF'd the stalking and butting in across personal conversations with some of my admin friends. I AGF'd all the misrepresentations and lies that were posted throughout the Q query would stop. I AGF'd that the false accusations about wp:outing (he had already outed himself on his own userpage) would stop. I AGF'd that the user would finally see the errors of all these negative ways. And I AGF that he will just try actually editing for a change rather than stalking, skewing and misconstruing. As I have stated. Through hundreds of IP addresses as an awarded anon. And throughout my use of this login, I have made over 70000 edits to Wikipedia. I have never been issued a valid warning. Only awards and many thank-you messages and emails. As one admin has said: "Now, Libs – I came across him some years ago as the most positive IP contributor ever seen, we don't interact as much as we used to, and to a certain extent he has been left to his own devices. What he has done, however, is provide invaluable support against warring factions on "controversial" articles (I put that in inverts because others who don't understand the problems would probably say they are "inconsequential") A lot of the time he is dealing with, what would seem from the outside, to be multiple separate entities trying to insert false or misguided information and then claiming that they have consensus because of the number of "different" entities – what, in fact, he is dealing with is probably tenth generation socks from the Land of Socksville." I do what I do. And I do it well. In my first year with Wikipedia it was hard to distinguish the trolling from the good faith mistakes. Now, after many many years here, the difference is easy-as-pie. Sure I have made mistakes. I made one last spring. I made one back before Christmas. I made one back in summer 2008. I may make a mistake before the year ends. Who knows? I hope I don't. But there is always that slim chance. The Real Libs-speak politely 12:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs, I _really_ do not appreciate your claims to AGF when you have in fact done the opposite - in fact, you are using the strategy of "I AGF when Luminifer did XYZZ" to actually accuse me of having done XYZZ. The rest of my problems with some of your behavior - which I DO hope you address - are documented in the WQA. I never stalked you - you make so many changes to pages I watched, it was hard to avoid you. Please, PLEASE, if you have accusations to make, make them properly, in the proper channels, and not in this hand-waivy way you keep doing by saying you AGF when I supposedly did some awful thing. You say you always offered a truce, yet in this text you actually then accuse me of countless bad things. Luminifer (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, your assumptions on the goodness of your behavior are not well founded - it operates on two falsities: (1) that everything on wikipedia is perfect, so that if you had problematic behavior it really would result in you getting a warning, and (2) that those who can issue warnings are truly aligned with wikipedia's goals and are paying attention to you. Countless historical figures now that of as horrible got nothing but praise at the time (I'm not saying you're one of these, I'm saying that the assumption results in a false conclusion). Luminifer (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Libs, you should quickly get to picking out statements in this comment and applying labels like "harassment", "butting in", and "personal attack". --King Öomie 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Feel free - if you really do think I'm harassing you, or am in violation of any other policy here, I already requested that you follow the proper channels, if you see a point in doing so... Luminifer (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just pointing out flagrant hypocrisy is all. No litigious intent here. What's the point, if you're really retiring? --King Öomie 17:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Where is the hypocrisy then, if I already requested that Libs do exactly that, before you even attempted to point it out? Luminifer (talk) 17:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The first part of this. --King Öomie 17:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive behaviour

Can I draw your attention to the following:

[[23]]

"A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, they can be told about this policy by posting a uw-3rr template message on their user talk page. Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive."

Sumbuddi (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If he had not then I was about to. Your warning was warranted based on your recent edits to the article over the past few days. GripTheHusk (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you've read the policy I just posted. Avoid posting a generic warning template if actively involved in the edit war, it can be seen as aggressive. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks GripTheHusk. Its nice to see that somebody has the ability to count to 2. I will contact an admin and have the page locked. I will AGF that the editor will stick to the talk page. Review the history of the page. We don't need another Wiki-is-Truth. The page had been nice and quiet for a while. My AGF is that hopefully it will stay that way. I am done for the day. Feel free to revert until one of the stewards intervenes. The Real Libs-speak politely 02:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am sending a couple of emails off and have a RR report ready to file on the noticeboard should the trouble continue. GripTheHusk (talk) 02:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Emails to whom exactly? If either of you had taken the time to engage in discussion of the content, rather than saying 'I am going to get the page locked', 'This is the way it stays', 'This is consensus' and similar comments, progress would have been made. Sadly that wasn't to be. Sumbuddi (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No need to email anyone. I've already received a couple that are leaning in a different direction were this latest disruption is concerned. There is a new account speaking an old blocked accounts language. Which is usually the way. The Real Libs-speak politely 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments at Talk:Alice in Chains (album)#Jar of Flies

This is a request for comments regarding Talk:Alice in Chains (album)#Jar of Flies and the following edits:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Facelift_(album)&diff=319293139&oldid=317756856
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dirt_(album)&diff=319293145&oldid=317661522
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_in_Chains_(album)&diff=319293153&oldid=319024685

-- C. A. Russell (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 12 October 2009

• From the editor: Perspectives from other projects
• Special story: Memorial and Collaboration
• Bing search: Bing launches Wikipedia search
• News and notes: New WMF hire, new stats, and more
• Wikipedia in the news: IOC sues over Creative Commons license, Wikipedia at Yale, and more
• Dispatches: Sounds
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• WikiProject report: WikiProject Tropical cyclones
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NWOBHM 14 October 2009

Either Judas Priest is an influence of NWOBHM or a part of it. Listen to the music, man. I have seen the argument that the definition of NWOBHM is that it started in the late 1970s so therefore the Priest is excluded. I am not sure if this is your argument but it is what has been expressed when removing the edits. There are two flaws with this argument. First, that definition is completely arbitrary. There very rarely hard definitions of eras, especially when it is based on a style which itself has arbitrary definitions. An argument could be made that Judas Priest is not part of the NWOBHM but simply saying that the era is defined as late seventies is not a valid argument because the definition itself could be in question. Second, one could argue that the style played by Judas Priest changed to the NWOBHM in 1978 with the release of Stained Class. Changing styles happens all the time and earlier material recorded by an artist is not considered with the work of a new style. For example, the Bee Gees were clearly a Disco Band, however, using the argument I have heard for JP and the NWOBHM, since the Disco era was 1973 and the started in 1958, they weren't a disco band. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 15:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You'll have to read the discussion and consensus regarding the band. The NWOBHM era was from 79-82. JP had a thriving career as an international touring act long before that. Hope that helps your misunderstanding. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have read the consensus article and it re-enforces what I thought consensus should mean on wiki. For example, a small group of editors doesn't reach consensus unless it can take it to a broader audience. Also, consensus can change. You seem to say that a small group of editor and now that it is written in stone. How is it that you feel you can impose the rule of the Wiki standard and not follow them yourself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinskogg (talk • contribs) 15:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

"Listen to the music, man."

This is what an invalid point looks like. Find a source for your comparison. What you think it sounds like means exactly nothing. --King Öomie 15:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

In music, any valid reference is ultimately linked to what it sounds like. Whether this is a critic or other authority, the final trial is the music. One would not rate a soft rock artist in the NWOBHW because the music sounds different. What difference would it make if I used a reference anyway, even sources deemed credible elsewhere such as AMG are regarded as poor here. Regardless, I did not use it as a refernece, I was only saying that a comparison be made of the music styles of said group and the style in question to show that there are definable, tangible similarities. On top of that, other users have similar points of view to mine, so it isn't "What I think it sounds like." The issue hear is that it was a weak consensus to begin with and I would question if the consensus still exsists. It does not appear to be a on the talk page. Clearly saying that it was a consensus at one time and therefore cannot be changed goes against the guidelines on the page I was directed to. Kevinskogg (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but WP:RS and WP:V are the bar for inclusion --King Öomie 18:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well there are sources. The small group just ignores them even though they are accepted elsewhere on Wiki. Now if you are going to continue attacking the "listen to the music" comment you can stop, it wasn't used as a basis for the argument nor a reference. Explain instead why AMG is not acceptable.Kevinskogg (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say they weren't. Check the signature- I was only pointing out your OR statement. --King Öomie 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock investigation

You've had a sock report filed against you (...). So good of the poster to inform you. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs
LUMINIFER was informed, and you weren't. --King Öomie 13:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion redux

Hi. Just a friendly notice to alert you to the discussion here. It concerns the proposed deletion – again - of the article on the band The Shells, for purported lack of notability.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Wiki libs, you do a lot of useful work here however you are inherently going to make a lot of enemies. In the future I would recommend not giving those people something to use against you like you have now. Triplestop x3 00:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 19 October 2009

• News and notes: WikiReader, Meetup in Pakistan, Audit committee elections, and more
• In the news: Sanger controversy reignited, Limbaugh libelled, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

What the f&$@?

Why the fuck was Wiki Libs using sockpuppets?

This is unbelievable.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't tell you. --King Öomie 17:02, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

If you are an administrator, could you take something off my block log? (It was one of Libs' sockpuppets tattling on me for reverting vandalism on articles.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To my Knowledge (unlessed I missed an RFA I should of supported) King isn't an Admin.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, OK.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin. But even if I was, the block log is permanent. --King Öomie 13:00, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, all right. I just thought that it was an unfair block.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 15:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's unfortunate. The only way to get rid of the block log is to abandon your account and start a new one (and you're actually not supposed to do that). Even if you request a fresh name and a vanish to escape harassment or get away from an outing or whatever, they'll apply microblocks to the account that detail the reason and duration of the previous account's blocking history. --King Öomie 18:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I think I'll just stick to my original account, though.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 18:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, unless I missed something, I believe that King misspoke: WP:CLEANSTART. Luminifer (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope.

"This is permitted only if there are no bans or blocks in place against your old account..."

--King Öomie 00:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot about that.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about what? --King Öomie 14:12, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

My previous block last year.--Greg D. Barnes (talk) 05:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I had read that to mean "currently" no blocks.. I didn't think it meant anything historical... *shrug* if anyone cares, there are people to ask. Luminifer (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your block

My e-mail is still active, my friend, if you wish to tell me anything? This whole blocking incident sucks and I'm utterly shocked... I don't think you even did anything wrong! :-D See you soon, buddy. Any trips to Milton Keynes in the pipeline? 144.124.16.33 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• It's good that the libs block does not extend to the libs talk page. Feel free to correspond with the libs here. Is he/she sees it, he/she will respond.
• I must say that Wikipedia is 100% better when you are editing it. Keep up the good work.

You are very correct in your observation that the libs did nothing wrong. The evidence clearly that proved the libs account was a stationary. Strangely there is a crime in rare/sporadic I-path criss-crossings with the much more travelled of the Wiki-world. Libs received a lot of uplifting admin correspondence wanting to know if he/she wanted help. But the Wik will never benefit from wheelie war. Ever. That just wastes a lot of time when editors should spend their time editing, referencing, reverting 'the useless' and deleting 'the nobodies'. The libs would never want anyone to waste any more time on it, too much time was wasted already. Rest assured, the libs loses no sleep in being called a duck. This account is temp-blocked. And that is a very bad thing for English Wik. But English Wik's loss just means a some non-English Wiks are winning. Some anonymous slob has time to build a few GAs out there in the non-English Wik-Universe. Whoever he/she is they are one a heck of a fantastic editor. Wikipedia always wins. Sure there is be a brief pause in libsy's humorous, much loved, much admired 'knuckle-snapping-ruler.' But when the libster returns that ruler will be replaced by a good sturdy peavey handle.

• No trips to Milton Keynes or Leighton Buzzard or Luton or any other destination for that matter. The Global economy eliminated international travel for the libs a long time ago and that travel freeze will likely last until about 2012 (when the world will end anyway).
• What in the hell are you doing at Aberystwyth University??? That's a long ways away from your ski lessons at Xscape isn't it? Been to Munich lately? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

No...

Alf retired... go here to see the bad news... :'( RoryReloaded 09:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm dismayed to hear this. Someone find Alf and drag him back here!

Libs, sorry about what happened, but there wasn't anything I could do. It seems some of your enemies have taken to dancing on your proverbial grave at various fora. I hope to see you back. Enigma^msg 06:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This sucks. Why are all the people I talk to retiring or getting in trouble for things they didn't do? RoryReloaded 20:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 November 2009

• Article contest: Durova wins 2009 WikiCup

• Conference report: WikiSym features research on Wikipedia

• Election report: 2009 ArbCom elections report

• Audit Subcommittee: Inaugural Audit Subcommittee elections underway

• Dispatches: Wikipedia remembers the Wall

• News and notes: Strategic planning, November conference, brief news and milestones

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• WikiProject report: Project banner meta-templates

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 05:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 November 2009

• Fundraiser: Controversial "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser to start 10 November

• New pages experiment: Wikipedians test the water at new page patrol

• German controversy: German Wikipedia under fire from inclusionists

• Multimedia usability: Multimedia usability meeting concludes in Paris

• Election report: Arbitration Committee candidate nominations open 10 November

• Book review: Review of Connected Minds, Emerging Cultures: Cybercultures in Online Learning

• News and notes: Ant images, public outreach, and more

• In the news: Beefeater vandalism, interview, and more

• Sister projects: Meta-wiki interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 16 November 2009

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser begins

• Bulgarian award: Bulgarian Wikipedia gets a prestigious award

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Several candidates standing

• News and notes: Kiswahili contest, new advisory board members, Foundation-l and more

• In the news: German lawsuit, Jimbo interview and more

• Sister projects: Wiktionary interview

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:39, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Early Welcome Back

		The Original Barnstar
		Glad to have such a great editor in the field of music back. SKATER Speak. 21:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. So nice to see punitive measures reassessed when results are double-checked. Oh, did that not happen? I'm sorry. --King Öomie 21:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

U R BAK

Hooray! RoryReloaded 08:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Reblocked

I have reblocked you indefinitely for block evasion, as evidenced by Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wiki libs. I might not have done so had you admitted the sockpuppetry, but your blatant refusal to admit that you had done something wrong is enough to change the block to indefinite. To appeal this block, please post {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this post. NW (Talk) 03:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 23 November 2009

• Uploading tool: New tool for photo scavenger hunts

• Election report: Arbitration Committee Election: Nominations closing November 24

• Fundraiser: "Wikipedia Forever" fundraiser continues

• News and notes: Government stubs, Suriname exhibit, milestones and more

• In the news: The Decline of Wikipedia, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 30 November 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election begins December 1, using SecurePoll

• News and notes: 35k donated, WikiProject for Wikipedia-Books, 2M rated articles, and more

• In the news: Reports of Wikipedia's demise, prescriptions for its ills, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 14:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 7 December 2009

• From the editors: 250th issue of the Signpost

• Editorial: A digital restoration

• Election report: ArbCom election in full swing

• Interview: Interview with David G. Post

• News and notes: Wikipedia's death report premature, fundraiser, usability, new CSD, noms, and more

• In the news: Ron Livingston sues vandal, disclosure of IP address ordered, brief headlines

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 14 December 2009

• Election report: Voting closes in the Arbitration Committee Elections

• News and notes: Mapping geotagged articles language, import sources enabled, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 21 December 2009

• Election report: ArbCom election result announced

• News and notes: Fundraiser update, milestones and more

• In the news: Accusation of bias, misreported death, and more

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 28 December 2009

• News and notes: Flagged revisions petitions, image donations, brief news

• In the news: Criticism from climate change sceptic, decade in review

• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 03:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 1 January 2010

• News and notes: Fundraiser ends, content contests, image donation, and more

• In the news: Financial Times, death rumors, Google maps and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 00:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 11 January 2010

• From the editor: Call for writers

• 2009 in review: 2009 in Review

• Books: New Book namespace created

• News and notes: Wikimania 2011, Flaggedrevs, Global sysops and more

• In the news: Wikipedia in British schools, Hitler's Downfall meme, and more

• Features and admins: Approved this week

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Signpost: 18 January 2010

• News and notes: Statistics, disasters, Wikipedia's birthday and more

• In the news: Wikipedia on the road, and more

• WikiProject report: Where are they now?

• Features and admins: Approved this week

• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 15:49, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Welcome back, bud. :) Nymf _talk/contr. 20:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You've held down a fine fort in my absence. Let me know when you toss your hat into the admin ring... you would have my support Wiki libs (talk) 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Libs prepares to erupt forth into a new dimension of vandal-smashing badassery.

--King Öomie 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Badassery is my new favourite word. Heading home for the day... see you t'marri. Wiki libs (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Great - you're back! Now... what vandal - busting things are you doing now? RoryReloaded 06:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Figured I'd join the party and cut my retirement short by several hundred year. :) Let's do this bullshit!--SKATER ^Speak. 18:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a better place when you are a part of it. Wiki libs (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm realizing that that image is sort of NSFW when you can only see the top ¹/₃. --King Öomie 19:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The top of that image is symbolic of certain editors who are bent on using Wikipedia for their own personal soapbox. Wiki libs (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome WL. I just wish I'd had the opportunity to do it sooner. :-) Good luck to you and all you're anti-vandal endeavours. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 19:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is good that there are still dedicated editors like all of you keeping things tidy! Wiki libs (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Wiki libs. You have new messages at User name one's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

username 1 (talk) 17:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Relating to which... the US?... The US is primarily English... but rather than use proper English grammar or spelling they have invented their own eroded version. Which is fine for use in an article about a US subject. But not about a subject originating from any other country where English is the primary language. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:ENGVAR, you shouldn't be changing articles from one variation of English to another, unless there's a really good reason.

And as a bibliophile, Libs, I'd have assumed you knew the score between AmEng and commonwealth :P --King Öomie 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not-so-much an understanding of International grammar rules... as it it a 'what-do-I-hear-everyday' for a lot of people... I think. For Canadians it is a mix. Southern Ontario (which is kinda-like the 51st state) and Western Canada are more likely to say 'Rush is" rather than "Rush are'... a Canadian band. Where I live we are more apt to follow 'auld' rules. North American permanent settlement begins in my region so we tend to lean towards our roots... because we have a few hundred years of history over everyone else. I can pick off incorrect spelling such as 'standardize' or 'color' or 'rumor' or 'center' or 'meter' much quicker than.. say... someone who lives in Calgary. But only because, for them, it isn't incorrect.(or at least they haven't been taught that it is incorrect yet... or they just simply forgot it) Wiki libs (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong words, there. "Incorrect" XD

Language changeʃ, doeʃ it not? Or haven't you noticed, our "S" letterʃ don't look like "F"'ʃ anymore? Surely thiʃ iʃ an improvement. It would seem overly arrogant to assume that English developed until it reached Canada, stopped, and now further developments are aberrations. --King Öomie 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, its like I said... its all a regional thing. My locally printed dictionaries/textbooks say labor is incorrect. But it doesn't mean its incorrect elsewhere. Canada is a big place. And in my Atlantic region 35% of the population speak French. 5% speak Malisset/MikMaq/other indigenous Indian languages... In Nova Scotia they still teach Gaelic as a second language in some school districts. I am told the inhabitants of Cape Breton speak English... but I have never been able to understand anyone who ever came from there because they all sound they have a mouth full of marbles. And the inhabitants of Newfoundland certainly speak English... but the twist all their sentences so that thy come out backwards. :-) Is that progression or regression. :-) Move further west and the spoken English begins to change drastically. Its different for all. Its like I said... it isn't so much what we are taught... but what we get used to seeing everyday. I actually think the F's in place of the S's looked pretty cool. I may change one of the databases here as a lark and see how long it takes for a student to notice. Wiki libs (talk) 19:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When I was in Ireland, a very nice tour guide expressed a measure of bewilderment as to why we call that language "Gaelic". They just call it "Irish", or sometimes "Old Irish". --King Öomie 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stevie Ray Vaughan

Quite some cleanup. And thanks for the compliment. :) Debresser (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You've earned it. Your edits are always quality. Wiki libs (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Now I'm Here and Liar (Queen song)

Hey there. I just saw this, and I had a question for you. Do you think you could source the part that you are reverting to, so that uninvolved editors can clearly see which genre the song fits, and not have to guess to take your word or the IPs? Thanks. NW (Talk) 15:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

It just goes back to sticking with the best choice deemed by lengthy discussions on the Queen page that, for Queen articles... (since they cover so many different styles)... it is just best to label them all with the parent Rock so that they are all consistent and accurate (since rock in a genre field is never wrong in any rock/alternative/metal act) Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Both songs are undeniably rock, and by changing to a subgenre of rock, i.e. heavy metal, the IP is not disputing the rock tag. It's the heavy metal claim that needs a source. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a hidden note stating that if anyone wants to switch a Queen song genre to anything other than rock... then a supporting citation must be attached in order to stick? Wiki libs (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably would be best; that way it doesn't look like simple edit warring to the uninitiated. NW (Talk) 15:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but for Queen articles... a lot of those "uninitiated" IPs.... are really floating IP genre-warriors who have been trolling Queen articles for years. You get used to them after awhile.. they all become very familiar... simply by their habits. Wiki libs (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

A hidden note hasn't stopped people from changing System of a Down's genre either.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

No one will ever get that one stable. Or Slipknot, Or Korn... Or Marilyn Manson etc Wiki libs (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably why I like the first 3.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Awesome script

Add to Monobook.js-

importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Watchlist  since');

Adds This link to your watchlist. Pares your displayed revisions to only those made since you last loaded the page. --King Öomie 14:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice. I will give it a go. Wiki libs (talk) 15:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Bon Scott

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Bon Scott/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Bling

Thanks for the barnstar. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a well earned shiny! :-) Wiki libs (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I'm not sure what that thing is on your talk page, but it seems to be a boxing glove on acid. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

It has already been commented that it is almost NSFW unless you scroll down to see the entire image. :-) Wiki libs (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

See below

The party just won't end! --King Öomie 15:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Bah and hah. I don't even own a Blackberry??? I have a cheap Motorola v385 that I barely know how to make a phone call with. :-) Those Blackberry diffs could be Nymf or any other of the dozens of regular music editors??? None of those IPs were me... I promised Nuclear Warfare on February 4th that my activity would be limited to my static IP... and I held upheld that pledge to the utmost. I have avoided all quarrel and contact with Sumbuddi since my return. Those links he was edit warring over were bogus. He shouldn't have edit war'd over them... but he was certainly right to remove them. I don't understand why he hold such a vendetta against me. I have reverted about 500 acts of vandalism in the past weeks... does he hate me that much that would like to have all my edits reverted? Wiki libs (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

After your previous SPI, open season was declared on ALL of your edits, so I think so, yes. --King Öomie 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I actually have no interest in his edits (metal is not my thing), hence my not noticing the Rust in Peace edit war et al, until I spotted the Blackberry IPs warring with me. I also previously explained that I didn't want to continue any quarrel with libs, to Scarian [24]. Unfortunately it seems that wasn't reciprocated, and when I got blocked due to Editor 410, I discovered all that had taken place, and really at this point it's way too late to allege stalking. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Try again when you have something more substantive to link Libs to 410. --King Öomie 16:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest... metal is not my thing either.... I am a Frank Zappa/Miles Davis fan. But since my earliest days on Wikipedia... going back many many years... I have have always checked the little box that says "add pages that I edit to my watchlist" ... and since heavy metal atract a lot of vandalism... there they are. I have almost 8000 pages in my watchlist. They are there because, at some point in time they were vandalised.... and I have never bothered to remove them from my watchlist. I have no real personal knowledge on most of the pages I revert. But I spent a lot of time in the past reverting un-discussed IP changes. As for those Blackberry edits... some were wrong... some were correct. A lot of them appear to reverts of previous IPs. There was a time and place I would have considered reverting those types of edits... but as I have stated in my SPI defence... they just aren't worth the time nowadays. Some IPs do make genre changes that I still revert. (Like if an IP were to add nu metal to a Metallica article). Simply based on volumes of discussion on this project I know that an edit like that would be about the equivalent to... say.... adding "bluegrass" to one of those pages... so they are still worth the revert. For Megadeth... adding hard rock isn't incorrect... there is a link on the band's main page to support it. But removing it from those pages isn't wrong either. Yes, it should be discussed. But, as you have learned with your casino links, sometimes getting discussion from an IP is like waiting for ice to catch on fire. It just isn't going to happen. That is about as clear as I can put it. As stated.... your removal of the links from the gambling pages was 100% valid.... and kudos for taking up that battle. But you of all people, following your Wickland WP:DUCK example, should know that sometimes a duck isn't a duck.

• On February 4th I stated to NW that I would have no edits beyond my activity from my static IP. I promised Nuclear Warfare that I wouldn't.... and have held strongly to that pledge. And I sincerely hope that a checkuser between my account and Editor 410 will help to clear the air between you and I. I am not Editor 410. After the checkuser is complete and it is shown that there is no connection between myself and Editor 410.... perhaps someday you and I will be able to contribute to the project together as a team working towards a better Wikipedia.... rather than as adversaries. Wiki libs (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Alice in Chains album chain

I took what you showed me earlier to heart and removed an EP from the New Order album chain but then someone reverted my edit saying this: "'For some artists it may be more appropriate to include all album types in one chain'" This historic, transitional EP by NO qualifies." Bearing this in mind, do you think we should now include Sap and Jar of Flies in the Alice in Chains album chain? Those EPs seem more 1981 – Factus 8 – 1982, especially Jar of Flies seeing as how it was the first EP ever to debut at number one on the Billboard 200. Plus do you also agree that 1981 – Factus 8 – 1982 belongs in the New Order album chain? Shaneymike (talk) 19:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The decisions made by the editors at one article don't affect other articles. "But article X did it THIS way" is almost never a good reason to change something. --King Öomie 20:05, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. But what do you think of 1981 – Factus 8 – 1982? Do you think that belongs in the New Order album chain? I don't think so but I don't want to get into a dispute with the guy who thinks otherwise without some backing. Shaneymike (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reinstated Sap and Jar of Flies in the Alice in Chains studio album chain. The rules that you've pointed out consistently are quite clear that there should be separate chains for live albums and compilation albums but not so much EPs. Shaneymike (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

A while ago it was right to leave them in their own separate chain. But their has been more discussion about this at WP:ALBUM and so now some of the rules have changed a bit. Would have to go the WP:ALBUm and review all that discussion to see what really went down. Some of those discussions are dry and boring... might take more than one reading to get through without falling asleep. :-) Wiki libs (talk) 14:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Sap and Jar of Flies may not signal a change in Alice in Chains' musical direction but they did signal an expansion of it as those records were more acoustic in sound, which is why I think we should keep them in the studio album chain. Shaneymike (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Libs

Been awhile, How've things been going?--SKATER ^Speak. 03:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. How are you? Wiki libs (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for that :D That guy was seriously in danger of me booking a ticket to Bucharest. I'm sure he'll try again, but hopefully there are enough admins on his case that he won't last long. At least that tedious Adyrock88 account is gone for good :) Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Eric Clapton worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Please use caution when reverting edits as you also removed multiple, valid gf edits which contained links to existing wp articles (influenced artists) in your efforts to undo the image edits. Srobak (talk) 20:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)-->

Now there's the most ridiculous use of a test-1 templated message if ever I saw one. – B.hotep •talk• 07:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

AGF and forgive hime Bubba. Newbie's make stupid mistakes. He just needs to read WP:VAN and WP:MOSLINK. Wiki libs (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Negative on all 3 accounts. See WP:MOSLINK#What_generally_should_be_linked... someone might also need to take a look at WP:FORUM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srobak (talk • contribs)

"someone" might? "Someone" might need to take a look at WP:CIVIL, passive-aggressive taunts hardly fit the bill. --King Öomie 00:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he hasn't read any one them King. Just AGF that they will get a browse someday. Wiki libs (talk) 11:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually - had you indicated in your edit note that you were removing repeated links, there wouldn't be an issue. There were other repeating links in that list that you missed... so I got them. Srobak (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I did indicate that... linking the MoS guide to boot. Must've got missed. Good work cleaning up the dupes. Wiki libs (talk) 17:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually in your original edit you simply did a rv without indication as to why (WP:ES). You only later cited MOS in response to my re-linking. As an aside - linking to broad-covering page such as WP:MOS does not help clear up your original reasons for an edit. It is not the responsibility of other contributors and editors to guess which one(s) of the dozens of items within the MOS you were basing your edit upon - but it is your responsibility to do so in the proper use of the Edit Summary. Please take full, appropriate advantage of its existence and usefulness in future contributions. Thanks. Srobak (talk) 19:40, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletions

Please stop removing such large pieces of information as you have done, for example, on Death on Two Legs (Dedicated to...) and numerous other songs from said album, without gaining overall consensus on the issue first. The subject is popularly edited and viewed, and there are good reasons to oppose the removal of said song articles. There is currently a discussion transpiring regarding this issue. Please refer to that before you delete the articles again, thanks. TheStig_t·c 15:11, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Song article fail WP:SONG regardless of whether there is any sentimental fanboy reason for keeping. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

What happened to "Tornado of Souls"?, What was the reason for deletion?, charts or for not being notable? --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yup. No charts = non-notable. Wiki libs (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

what, you should not delete it, just because it never was released as a single, and what is the problem?..well I will not leave the song delete, if you want to delete take it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Albums and songs... --Eduardofoxx13 (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Eduardofoxx13 - take a look at WP:Notability and WP:SPIP contained within. Srobak (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring. I cannot edit the Wik when I am away from my static IP. Wiki libs (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Are you still around my old friend? 86.3.61.125 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Usually... although I am about to pack a sack and head a Scout troop out to the Appalachian Trail and Mount Katahdin for a few days. Hopefully I will not have a heart attack whilst climbing. (I say that every year :-) )Wiki libs (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I was just checking in! You should do some cardio before you go up there just in case ;-) - You've now made me pretty worried! 86.3.61.125 (talk) 11:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

No cardiac arrests (obviously :-) ) but legs and lower spine feel like lead this morn. Wiki libs (talk) 12:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Make sure to get in some good edits from your 5 Blackberries while you're up in the hills. Have fun! --King Öomie 14:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Only 5? Haha. 144.124.220.251 (talk) 19:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm still waitin' for one of yoos rubes to buy me one so I can see what all the fuss is aboot. :-) I'll stick with my little motorola... a mobile phone should just be that... a phone. Wiki libs (talk) 19:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nu metal

This revision ended up deleting some sourced material. Try to be more careful with this. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC))

Sometimes you break a few eggs. 1 out of 23911 isn't a bad ratio. Wiki libs (talk) 12:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Libsy

I'm a little wasted but cannot get over the sheer magnitude of the picture on your user page. It's awesome. I hope you're doing well my friend. Rammstein are playing Sonisphere Festival this year; are you in? 144.124.220.251 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

My post

You had deleted my post cause your search, although your deletions are not right. My articles depend on below video.Must see. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b58Xil8RfRY —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallclone2 (talk • contribs) 05:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I too (see above)

enjoyed your user page but that's not why I'm here. I'm here to give you the seldom coveted "Thumbs Up Award" for your clean-up of red links somewhere. Life is good. Einar aka 02:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mucho obligioso! Wiki libs (talk) 15:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I posted that last night while doing a live radio show (KLDK) using a keyboard with all the letters worn off. Somehow in the thrill of the moment I forgot to sign it. Carptrash (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Wiki libs (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Big Brother ;-) 86.3.61.125 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

G'day Mate! Hows shoool? Wiki libs (talk) 14:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Been back home for a while. Just hanging out and trying to avoid going back to the Land of the Sheep for as long as I can :-D - How are you, sir? Wouldn't you agree the eye is a Orwellian on the globe logo? Btw, I locked myself out of my account until Jan 1st 2011. Full time comeback then for sure :-D 86.3.61.125 (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yellow Pearl

Apparently it's true, although I'd heard nothing about it at all until now. [25] It looks like most of his solo stuff is on there, including those two B-sides which as far as I know, have never made it to CD until now. I'll change the wikilink in the article though. Cheers! Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow up. I knew nothing of the subject... but knew that you probably might. Wiki libs (talk) 13:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Kiss Asylum

Kiss's 1985 Asylum release is definitely a glam metal album. Even the article on the hit single from that album "Tears are Falling" is labeled under genre as glam metal. Also, calling it a heavy metal album is a real stretch. Albums like Ride the Lightning and Defenders of the Faith would be considered "heavy metal" albums from that time period, but Asylum is just a hard rock/glam metal album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill Hicks Jr. (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs a reference from a source that passes WP:RS. Personal opinions don't count on Wikipedia. Hope that helps. Have a nice day! 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

War

Do not create war of editings. I correctly do. I result sources. Yours faithfully —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf111lion (talk • contribs) 16:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem is.. you are blocked from editing. You cannot change a music genre without asking permission first on the article talk page. Hope that helps. Wiki libs (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

About your references to WP:Musicians on Talk:Led Zeppelin

There, happy now?

By the way: Here are the Instructions for Genres in Infoboxes:

Genre

The genre or genres of music performed by the act. Aim for generality (e.g. Hip hop rather than

East Coast hip hop). Genres should be separated with a comma delimiter. Genres should be wikilinked.

Use piped links where needed, for example: Pop, rock. Note: most genres are not

proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be

capitalized. Separate multiple entries with .

It doesn't say anything about what systems are allowed to be used, so you better support your claims with something else. Regards, CentraCross (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Very good. That is the proper place to open up a discussion about setting a precedence for order. It may result in no real dialogue and the order in the Led Zeppelin article staying exactly how its been for the past several years and no alphabetic order being used at all. But the template discussion page was the correct place to start the discussion. Wiki libs (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wiki libs

I have a couple of things to say if you would be so kind to listen. This is gonna take a while, so I'd better apologize for taking your time.

1. Excuse me if I've missed something, but Where in the Led Zeppelin Article does it say that the band played More Hard Rock and Heavy Metal than Blues-Rock? It says they "are Regularly cited as the progenitors of Heavy Metal and Hard rock" - but unfortunately that is not the same thing. I'm afraid that whatever it may say on other pages is Irrelevant. The thing is that Wikipedia Articles are not allowed to cite eachother - even if it's just an abstract reference. However, if there are sources at those articles - sure, feel free to bring them to the Led Zeppelin Page. Only sources at this page are valid, and I have to say that there is no statement in the text, cited or not, that says Led Zeppelin played more HR/HM than Blues- and Folk-Rock.
2. I did not say Deep purple were considered the founders of Heavy Metal, I was refering to all three, which is easy to see by re-reading the Sentence. However, I admit it was a little confusingly written, so I can forgive you for misinterpreting if that's what you did. It was just a bit of neutralising copy-editing - and it worked rather well, except perhaps for the sake of confusion... I actually trusted some other editor - better at making the formulation - to help fixing it. It seems that didn't happen.
3. Are You accusing me for POV? Whit all respect I must say that even though you're the one who's been trying to work against progress in this debate, tried to use invalid arguments, made encyclopedic statements without providing the sources (which you're talking about alot), and you're fighting for having HR and HM in the beginning (saying it is the Order of significance, for which reaon it must be Verifiable but currently isn't) - I still believe you are working for the greater good. I am not accusing you for privatism, and so I would realy like to know whay you would accuse me.
4. I wish you could say exactly what it is you want to achieve with all this? What is your goal in this Debate? If it is conservatism - may I just point out that this article is still C-class, so being conservative is not a good thing. Infact it never is on Wikipedia. Maybe I should go and make a policy out of it, since that seems to be in high regard with your good will.
5. My goal is Not to make a statement opposite to yours, it is not to lift forth Blues-Rock just because I want to, It is to find a working system to order the genres on the Led Zeppelin Page. I am open for other solutions, BUT, I want them to be argumented, something that has not yet been achieved in this debate. If you and others wish to have the genres in a certain order, I'm perfectly willing to accept that order, but not unless there is explained what it is supposed to signify. And if it is encyclopedic, It has to be Verifiable and cited. If you can do that - Please go ahead and do so, cause if there is no such explaination - I'm afraid you cannot expect it to be understood.
6. I wish to help, if that's what you also want - please try to work with me and not against me. That's what Wikipedia Discussions are about: To along with other editors come up with the most appropriate solution to a problem. Wikipedia is not about winning a case - our only enemy is the problems that prevents an article from being perfect, and even to them we must show full respect.
7. I never was excusing myself saying I was fighting vandalism - I've said I wanted to find a system that doesn't allow POV or OR. That is after all one of the things that Wikipedia is all about. I know it might not be guaranteed to work, but if makes a difference - I think it's worth it. If not - at least We've tried.
8. You seem to put a lot of weight into Generalism on Article rules. While it is good for reasons of simplicity, Generalised rules prevent alot of the Individualisation that every article requires, because their subjects are different. You refer to WP:Musicians saying that all articles should use the system if One article uses it, but there is no such rule. If we want to have WP:Musicians to establish a rule, we can try to make that happen simply by proposing it. However, I have no faith in neither the proposal of such a rule nor the rule itself, and I don't think that there should be a general system applying to all pages. Regardless of which way - it will take a long time before any results show.
9. Therefor we need a Temporary solution. The point of that is not to establish a new system, it is to have a system to use as backup when the main system is under disscussion or being changed.
10. Alphabetization is only One suggestion. There are many others that could work equally well or even better. As of yet, no one has proposed any other system, and since the old system is still unkown, we only have one. If you are proposing "Order of significance" - bear in mind that the concept is in itself Encyclopedic. Alphabetization is not encyclopedic, and is Principaly Neutral. Encyclopedic Content Must be Verifiable. Therefor we can not introduce Order of Significance without soources stating that very order. If there are such sources, they must be provided. Since cite notes are not allowed in infoboxes (and still would not fit in the context) they should be provided on the Talk Page.
11. The principal neutrality is indeed a bit problematic. There is as you say a possibility that it will not be practicaly neutral. The example you put forth is that people will interpret the alpha order as being an Order of significance. If this is because OoS is quietly assumed to be the default order there are two options.

• Either we could add a note saying "in alphabetical order" (this could or could not be extended to a policy rule, whatever we wish)
• Or we could use order of significance instead. I am not against that, but there are requirements that must be forfilled.

    If there is another reason we ought to try and figure it out. We could of course also try and find another system.

The point is: We are goning to use the best system, but we are gonna use it properly. If that's not possible, we have to use a "worse" system, that we can use properly.

If you are sworn to be against alphabetization, and there are others who share your views, we should help eachother to find a better system. But we should not try to Outdebate eachother. Every one who enters a debate must be ready to change their beliefs and opinions for the greater cause. I have accepted this and I'm quite sure you have as well.

Hope you can appreciate all this and help to make yourself and others (includig myself) follow it. I absolutely don't say this because in any way i want to try and give you an order. I say this because I want a progressive debate, and I would like if you would help me get that, as I'm sure that's what you also want.

High Regards, CentraCross (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

• • For 1) I didn't say to use Wik LZ/HR/HM articles for support I said to look at the references found in those articles which provide concrete support for my statement.
  • For 2) No, re-reading still points out your initial goal.
  • For 3) Yes you are. Simply by targeting one article and trying to reduce the significance of 2 field entries that you do not agree with... your agenda is very clear and your edit history and talk page statements show it.
  • For 4) The article is not C class because of the box. The box has been that way for years... it is the only real stable part of the page. Want a GA?... work on the body content.
  • For 5) As it has already been stated by several other editors... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. The field entry on the LZ page is no different from any other. If you were truly honest in your goal to re-order based on the alphabet... you'd be over at the article for The Who and putting 'art rock' first on their list.
  • For 6) "the most appropriate solution to a problem"??? What was the problem.... there wasn't a problem... the article infobox has been one of the only truly stable elements of the page for 7 years. The only 'problem' was the problem you had with heavy metal being included on the list. And you edit history through numerous name changes shows it.
  • For 7) There is no personal pov or OR in the infobox (if there was it would have had people re-ordering it daily for the past 7 years)... and, as stated, if your intent was not pushed by personal agenda... you'd be re-order pages all across the Wik. Wiki libs (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • For 8) I support individualism on any article if it is driven by project improvement and not personal vendetta against specific content. I have been a staunch supporter of the editing goals of the regular editors of the 'list of thrash band' articles even though, as a whole across the Wik, I despise 'list of X bands' and have had a hand in the complete removal of over a dozen of them. For the LZ page, the neutrality of the infobox is proven simply by the consistency over the years of how its been detailed (probably one of the most consistent) and its accuracy is proven by the sources found in the article page.. the sources found in their album pages... the sources found for the articles for the genres themselves... etc.
  • For 9) Therefore we need do nothing
  • For 10) Alphabetization is a fine suggestion for a full project layout. Despite your statement that it is neutral, for you-it isn't, there are better arguments to support using alpha order. But, as it has been stated, there is no need to press false neutrality if it is going to decrease accuracy... verifiable accuracy especially... like the LZ article. As I said earlier... had you shown honesty by going over to the page for The Who and placed art-rock first... your true intent would not have been so glowing.
  • For 11) The better system you keep mentioning... isn't a system... it is your single edit to a single page. A 'Wiki-system' is something the community creates and then implements across the project. A personal agenda is alphabetizing a list so that the end result is that one of the entries gets reduced significance by coming last. The Led Zeppelin article isn't listed by any order of significance... it is listed to attempt accuracy. An accuracy supported by reliable sources found in the article supported by reliable sources listed in other LZ related articles. Simple as that. No hidden agenda there... it just is... what it is. When I saw LZ in 1975 they were a heavy metal band. That's what everyone called them. That's what everyone called Thin Lizzy and Aerosmith and Grand Funk Railroad. It wasn't an insult. That's just what they were. It's what they called in the press.... well into the 1980s it was still what they were called in the press. I can remember when 'anti-metal' CREEM magazine actually did a special edition devoted to heavy metal... LZ was on the cover. And when they followed that up with a "is metal dead?" issue... there was LZ on the cover again... along with KISS, Ted Nugent, Aerosmith, Heart and Queen. Yes.. I know... I am dating myself by talking about magazines that I owned in the 1970s that had articles about the distorted, pounding, throbbing, shrieking, wailing, screaming, majestic, futuristic, fantasy fueled heavy metal POWER of Heart. But there... now you know how old I am... oh... and those adjectives I used in the previous sentence to describe Heart... all came from an early 70s album review... for LZ IV. Wiki libs (talk) 13:22, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nu metal

I was wondering if you or anyone else would like to help me work on this article. I'm interested in adding a "Decline in popularity" section. The article makes no mention of it, and it is definately significant.--Confession0791 (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Has it declined in popularity? Do you have reliable sources to include in such an 'anti-nu-metal' article section? It seems to me that Korn, Deftones, Slipknot, Soulfly, Chimaira, DdevilDriver, System of a Down(currently on hiatus), Il Nino, Sevendust, Mushroomhead, Stone Sour, Papa Roach, Otep, Disturbed, Drowning Pool, Demon Hunter, Mudvayne, Hellyeah! and Godsmack are still VERY significant acts in the heavy metal world... and ALL OF THEM are still just releasing the same albums of nu metal over-n-over-n-over again without ever really changing their style. Some try to brand them under a different flag... but it's just because the term nu-metal has some sort of Wiki-invented negativity to it. But it doesn't cover the fact that all these bands are as 'nu metal' as they were when they started... and all just as busy as they ever were (minus the sleeping SOAD... who will return to the nu metal universe... eventually) If all these nu metal bands are still touring, recording and selling... many of them "big-time"... how is it in decline? I would love to see the sources of it. If reliably sourced it would be an OK addition to the article. But Korn, Deftones, Soulfly, Chimaira, Ddevildriver, Mushroomhead, Stone Sour, Disturbed, Demon Hunter and Hellyeah! have all recently released (or are about to release) highly anticipated albums. Most of which have sold/charted well. And these bands are big draws on the summer festival circuit across North America and Europe too. So if all these nu metal acts are still releasing popular nu metal albums.. and they are... and still touring successfully... and they are... where is the decline? Wiki libs (talk) 13:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't interested in creating an "anti-nu-metal" article section, I'm interested in being encyclopedic. Besides, some of the bands you mentioned are alternative metal or metalcore. Regardless of your apparent inclination towards the genre, I wrote the section anyway. --Confession0791 (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Alt metal and metalcore are 2 of the flags that nu metal fanboys try to fly their favourite bands under trying to avoid the negative connotations that have attached themselves to the term 'nu metal'. But those bands... like all the bands mentioned above are, in the end, still just nu metal bands. I said that adding a section like the one you were hoping for was perfectly OK if it had a valid reference.(I haven't actually looked at your contribution to see if your source passes WP:RS... I simply WP:AGF that it does.) But if someone had a reference showing the busy touring schedules and recent sales of all the band's I listed above... it could also be added as a counter-point to your additions... and it would be perfectly valid for someone to do so. I will pass... I really don't have much interest in the subject, or in any of the nu metal bands listed above. I simply revert all vandalism and undiscussed IP edits to those articles whenever I see them pop up in my watchlist. I do the same thing for the other 8300 pages on my watchlist... they are of of equal/low importance to me. My true 'editor' heart and effort would go to editing pages for Stompin' Tom Connors or Oscar Peterson or Rush or Glenn Gould or General Arthur Currie or Sam Steele or Sir Edmund Logan... but if I were ever to edit those... I would never edit them as Wiki libs... that's not what 'Wiki libs' is for. Wiki libs (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Chimaira is pretty solidly metalcore, DevilDriver closer to Lamb of God. The rest are pretty much nu metal, though some may dispute the genre for Soulfly, Deftones and Demon Hunter as well (and some musically oblivious 8th graders insist on calling slipknot Death metal, but they're wrong) :P --King Öomie 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And, in the end, they're all just heavy metal. ;-) Wiki libs (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm just glad nobody mentioned groove metal... – B.hotep •talk• 17:12, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Groove metal??... is that even a genre? :-D Wiki libs (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I know where you guys stand on this crap, but as a fan of Pandora and the Music Genome Project in general, I'm keenly interested in the musical styles and influences that make up our genre labels. As I've said before, in another life, I could have called you friend been a genre warrior. --King Öomie 19:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And I could have been a dreamer, I could have been a shooting star. – B.hotep •talk• 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You would have a hard time convincing anyone that Trivium, Chimaira, Shadows Fall, Lamb of God, etc. are nu metal bands packaged under a different name. --Confession0791 (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:The Final Frontier

Discussion there you might be interested in. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Mong Alcaraz

Hi Wiki libs, I notice you rolled back some contributions of the above user. I have also rolled some back thinking it is vandalism - what do you think? I reported him but an admin said he'd not been warned enough and vandalism wasn't obvious Kneale (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Brought her to the attention of an admin. Wiki libs (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Iron F'ing Maiden

Hiya! Nice job on the cleanup on the Iron Maiden article! 'tis funny, there was a "small" (ie: independent, but not very small) music shop near where I used to live, and after years of perusing through the music they sold, I always found it kinda neat that the Iron Maiden section was labeled "Iron F'ing Maiden!!!" with a bunch of wall space devoted to Maiden posters (something I've never seen in the US anywhere else). I was lucky enough to score their discography poster (asked if they had any for sale, and was told that they weren't for sale items and were just promo posters sent to the stores, one a piece per store). Tried talking the salesperson into selling it to me, and they went in the back for a little "conference" with some coworkers, came back, poster in hand and said "Here, you can have it" - made my day! Anyway, I've rambled long enough... Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 21:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Iron Maiden: Discussion of Album Sales: 70m or 80/100m, or worded to include certified and (as claims) 70, 80, and 100

Hi, if you wish to participate, there is a discussion going on at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iron_Maiden#Iron_Maiden_the_truth_about_their_sales_records_.28Ultimate_Discussion.29 with the above proposals for revising the lede's album sales section. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 02:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually saw Iron Maiden co-headline with Rammstein at Sonisphere Festival over the summer. Preferred the Germans, to be fair. :D How are you Libsey? 144.124.220.251 (talk) 00:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Well hellooooo stranger! How are things? I saw Iron Maiden on the Powerslave Tour and then again on the Seventh Tour of a Seventh Tour. haven't seen them since. Wiki libs (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm good, ta. And yourself? Do you miss me? :) Any MK trips planned?! 144.124.220.251 (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

No trips for me. Too busy at home. Scouts take up most of my time. 19 of them this year. Wiki libs (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

J04n(talk page) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec10/Balloon}} to your friends' talk pages.

And a very Merry Christmas to you J04n!!! Hope your Holiday Season is a happy and safe one!!!!!!!!!!! Wiki libs (talk) 16:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)