User talk:Kameejl/Archive 2

Volendam

Hi -- I've removed your talk page comments; let's not give such vandals the idea that they were somehow successful... I hope you don't mind. Avb 00:33, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mayhem-DeMysteriisDomSathanas.jpg)

⚠

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Papa November 10:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Extreme metal

I am renominating {{Extreme metal}} for deletion, and I was wondering if you would like to join the debate as you were the orginal nominator of the template. Thundermaster367 13:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The reason I want to nominate was for one of the reasons that you nominated it for nominated it for. It is making pages have up to 4 navigation boxes at the bottom of the page. It also is becoming larger and larger because everyone is constantly adding genres that aren't extreme metal. It's causing a huge mess of genres and I don't feel it's needed anymore. Also, if you want to join the debate, click the link to the template, then click the considered for deletion part. Thundermaster367 08:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

A question

I was just wondering something. You used to be known as User:Emmanuel. How did you change your name? Did you just make a new account? I also read that User:Emmanuel was blocked before at least once, but now you havw know block logs. Just wondering. Navnløs 23:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question

Do you wanna point out where it says in WP:MOS that User:Twsx went wrong? Scarian^Talk 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you strike out your reference to those policies unless you can specifically point out what you mean by them. Scarian^Talk 15:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] - You quoted WP:MOS/WP:MUSTARD but could not substantiate why you quoted them. Either strike them or point out where in those policies it backs up your arguments. Scarian^Talk 13:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What's a guy to do?

I tried, as you did with Amon Amarth, but it did not work. I went through the history of the Judas Priest and Megadeth pages, and found they both had line breaks originally and since users like User:Funeral, User:Scarian, and User:156.34.142.110 (who uses about a billion different IP addresses) kept changing these pages to comma breaks, I told them there reasons weren't good enough (they kept citing the music infobox template, even though they know the issue with genre delimiters) I reverted them and said the same thing like you did on your edit summary on A.A., and cited the date and everything, but they continue to change pages (especially JP) even after I have warned them. What am I supposed to do with these rule breakers!! I can't break 3RR and neither can they but since there is more than one of them, they can keep reverting me w/o breaking 3RR. It's really upsetting! Navnløs (talk) 23:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Calling people who change layouts to comma seperated lists "rule breakers" is absurd. There is no rule for either of the formattings, so neither side is breaking a rule. You point out the fact that there is no consensus on the topic in most of your edit summaries, yet you fail to admit that both sides are in the very same position. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If we are in the same position then why is this such a debated topic? I know. It's because many articles are being changed, line breaks are replaced for commas on articles that featured line breaks for months. These articles were ok until this comma craze started, why would these articles need to be "fixed" now? I will only except changes which are based on consensus. Until consensus is reached I'll be happy to keep articles in their original state. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"Original state" does in no way constitute as correct, or a rule. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 15:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless the "original state" has never been incorrect. Kameejl ^(Talk) 15:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hold your horses there buddy

[2] - You can't cite the "template" if there are two conflicting choices in there. Do you see what I mean? Otherwise it'd be a circular argument. You could say: "See the template" and I could say: "See the template". Yeah...? So if you continue to use the argument it means that you're erroneously citing sources that do not back you up 100%. Please be more careful in the future. Scarian^Talk 20:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Then why did you change from commas to breaks without mentioning that? I wasn't jumping to a conclusion then, was I? When you make a change you should state why not hide it behind some other changes. For the record, could you state here why you changed it, please? Thank you. [Oh, and an appropriate diff to prove the correctness of the edit would be helpful, cheers] Scarian^Talk 09:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[3] - Specifically: "If pro-comma editors stop changing every article they come across..." - Please don't say things that aren't necessarily true, that was a sly dig at the "opposing side" [We're Wikipedia editors for Christ's sake, we're not on a football team or something stupid like that] and you know it. I could accuse your "side" of the same thing, but I won't, because I'm not that petty. I would like you to strike that sentence to show that you're assuming good faith, please. Scarian^Talk 12:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Alright, yeah I gathered that. And it makes sense, it was a decent suggestion. Could you do the honours of telling Navnlos to cease fire until Alf's suggestion gets heard a bit more then? He seems to listen to you. Scarian^Talk 15:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think your armistice is a great idea, but also a temporary solution/ institution. I also wanted you to know that I agree with you, that there is no reason to change to comma breaks when wikipedia has always used line breaks and it worked out just fine for years. Navnløs (talk) 19:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Wondering

The IP address user has taken it upon themself to remove all flagicons from a number of band pages, and I was just wondering if that indeed foolows the rules and is okay. I don't really mind the flagicons one way or another, though I think they are useful for lists of people or things. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I know that it's an actual rule but that shouldn't apply for infoboxes. I can understand the redundancy of them but I think because an infobox was made to be quick info that it would be an easy way to determine where they are from. All in all I think it looks good which causes it to become something like the delimiter issue. I think that there should be a way we can implement them automatically to articles, for instance you type in "country" and it would automatically put the flagicon next to it in the origin space. The flagicon might be better off not in the origin space but next to the band name, or some other place. Also I been thinking that the infobox should be made to have flagicons become acceptable because it would be good for bands that have the same names. I'm also a bit confused myself when these flagicons can be used because when I first started out I seemed to just use them like they were acceptable - just like I have with reviews but thats more understandable now. --CircafuciX (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSFLAG such flag usage is deprecated. The downsides outweigh the advantages, is the community consensus. --John (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

"Flag images should be useful to the reader, not merely decorative." and "Flag images, especially flag icons in biographical infoboxes, should not be used to indicate birth or death places, as this may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality." If you disagree with me on the fundamental uselessness of flags in infoboxes like this, maybe you can list some advantages of using (say) United States over using United States to list (say) the country of origin of a band? --John (talk) 15:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, thanks for your thoughts. I'm not even gonna touch the flagicon issue. I'm already deep in debate over the genre delimiter issue. Besides, while I will still voice my opinion on the genre delimiter issue, I'd rather get to editing wikipedia and work on band articles, video game articles and some select few animes that I like. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message Kameejl. Please don't revert the anon user's removal of flags unless you are able to state what advantage they offer, as I asked you to above. There may well be interesting discussions to be had but reversion will not achieve that. Please use honest edit summaries and be prepared to justify what you are doing if another user challenges it, as they have now done. --John (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know some reasons to have flags:

• Infoboxes are meant to be quick overviews. Countries are very quickly identified by their flag. I wouldn't know any quicker way.
• Origin flags don't violate any MOS
• Bands have no nationality that can be emphasized, as a band is not a person. Kameejl ^(Talk) 23:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your message. I will answer your points in turn. Quickness of identity; flags are not very useful for this purpose; consider and , for example. We have a really quick way that works; it is called using words. Australia and New Zealand are very readily recognisable, far more so than the flags are. MoS; well, I think I pointed out above two ways in which they break MOSFLAG. Your third point about bands not having a nationality is well said; it then follows that 'giving' them one is a major violation of our policy against original research. Which flag would the article on U2 have, under your system, when half the group is English-born, and half Irish? It is easy to think of half a dozen examples like this where a band has mixed nationality. As you say, bands have no nationality, and as I say, we should not be awarding them one because we think it makes the page look nice. Any time this has ever been discussed the same conclusion has been reached, that the disadvantages of using flag icons like this far outweighs the advantages. Best wishes, --John (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think what you said is just an excuse to point out you just don't like the flags. The arguments you've used are easily countered. Firstly, in 99.999% of the infoboxes flags are quickly identifiable. Just because 2 flags look alike doesn't mean no one will understand a particular flag in an infobox. This is a minor issue that is practically unheard of in practice. Words are quick, images are quicker. Combine words and images and viola, the prefect infobox is born. If you can attribute an origin to a band, then you can attribute a flag. U2 will need an Irish flag (remember, it's a flag for origin not nationality of The Edge or whoever that is in the band). If you want to see the flags as something bad, you can, but in fact they're more harmless then a sleeping baby. Kameejl ^(Talk) 00:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree entirely with you on this, and so does the consensus of the community. Remember that harmlessness is not a criterion for inclusion in an encyclopedia; usefulness is, and verifiability is. Flags which are neither useful nor verifiable will continue to be removed by me, unless I see evidence that the community consensus has changed. For what it's worth I love flags, I just have too much respect for them to want to misuse them this way. --John (talk) 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

My Bloody Valentine are another interesting case in point. Would you have and and ? All three? Any two from three? There would be the potential for edit wars over the article's use of flags; anything connected with Ireland is potentially controversial, believe me. On Stiff Little Fingers, would you use ? You'd cause great offence if you did, as that flag has ethnic overtones and is unofficial. and would be just as controversial. The best solution is clearly to have none. Our readers can read and flags over-simplify nationality and fan the flames of sterile edit wars, without any great utility offered in return. --John (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the consensus on this subject is non-existent. I have already explained why (origin is no part of WP:FLAG etc.). Secondly I have explained the usefulness of flags, they can and are useful in many cases. Thirdly, as I have said before, if a origin can be attributed to a band so can a flag. If a flag is controversial then it can be left out (freedom!), otherwise it can be kept. As there is no rule we can apply flags where we want as each article can have its own rules/consensus. You are not the one to apply a self made rule (mass editing can be really disturbing you know)). Mass editing is pov pushing. Isn't it clear pov pushing is a no no? Don't start a riot and you won't get problems. 83.208.127.235 02:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC) (Kameejl)

Bestial Warlust, yes, again

Hey, don't mean to bother you, but Scarian decided to nominate this article for deletion again. The outcome of the last one was keep and this one will be, as well. However, if you want to express your opinion on the deletion page, as you did before when it was nominated, feel free to do so, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that was fast, thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your extremely good argument, though it seems users like twsx, scarian and others won't listen to sense. They just wanna get me and they'll do w/e it takes. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... interesting accusation. Scarian^Talk 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Amon Amarth

Please don't start this edit war again. On this article you are clearly a minority wishing for comma separated genres. This is clearly pov pushing. The caps are now incorrect, you're not foxing anything. If it's your intention to restore the original lay out please consider restoring the first lay out of 28 dec 2006. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Have you really read WP:EW and WP:POV? Your baseless accusations make it seem like you didn't, or didn't understand them. I am always open to talk about stuff, but please refrain from leaving false and aggravating incriminations and trivial or even untrue reasonings on my talk page, they are not what I want to spend time on on wikipedia. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

PS: I forgot to thank you for notifying me about the talk on the infobox. Sorry about that, and thanks again. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I known what an edit war is and I know what a point of view is.

• A) If an editor thinks X is the right way, then that's the editor's point of view.
• B) If an editor insists on having X in the article, and continuously edits articles and reverts edits so X is in the article and Y is not in the article, the editor is pushing his/her pov.
• C) If an editor keeps on imposing his/her pov on an article (content or lay out wise, it doesn't matter) reverting edits again and again, the editor is participating in an edit war.

Do you really want me to point you to the edits where the editor in A, B an C is called Twsx, X=commas and Y=line breaks? Come on, be honest. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No objection on your wording. There is however a difference between your explanation and the policies carrying the name. Now you be honest (don't need you to, it's fact, but still): I am reverting your edits, you are reverting mine. If that constitutes as edit warring, it applies to you too. The difference between us two and Navlos is, i am not, and you don't seem to be either, steadily looking for things to revert. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't look for things to revert, though. I only protected certain pages that had line breaks for a long time. The reason why me, Kameejl, CicafuciX and others are not "edit warring" is because we share consensus, which is a rule of wikipedia. You, however, are the only one that has the opinion that Amon Amarth needs comma breaks, which makes you the wrongdoer per WP:CON. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, you are saying yourself, Kameejl and Cica. represent a consensus? Are you honestly joking? Consensus involves the whole community. At best, your "consensus" is a handful of contributors whom all share the same opinions and have all been involved, heavily, in said issues. That is not what a consensus is about. Oh, and please read WP:INDENT as your additions to conversations can get confusing (I have indented for you this time). Scarian^Talk 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and btw Navnlos please stop saying "rule(s)". There are no "rules" on Wikipedia. Only policies and guidelines. Scarian^Talk 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There are other editors who have reverted TWSX, but no one has made it into line breaks besides him so consensus can easily be assumed to be on our side. I read WP:INDENT. I won't use "rules" then, but "policies" and "guidelines" are meant to be followed, not unlike rules. The other words are just sugarcoating and the same. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Nice edit on Massacre. That would solve a lot of problems if more things were done like that. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Lists for deletion

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of industrial metal musical groups, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of black metal bands and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of doom metal bands are all up for deletion. I don't know where you fall on lists but theres a couple all up for deletion as you can see. Also Scarian has labeled me as a Canvaser and my vote may mean little now. It's also my first time seeing that rule and my intervention with Nav may have lost them all. Anyway you may leave your opinion there whatever it may be. --CircafuciX (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's ridiculous. Scarian just wants his way. CircafuciX was not and is not canvassing. He's been asking people like me what my opinion is on the list issue like he did here, and if you happen to be of the same opinion, as I am, he just told me waht was going on. That is not canvassing. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

RfD Nomination

Thanks for telling me. Thundermaster^TRUC 15:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC) 14:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Twsx

He has continually edit warred on Dissection and Amon Amarth, as well as other pages I'm sure, and he's been warned (again). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Revert-Metallica

Hello. You have reverted my edit for the 2nd time. Well, I was hasitating because the German Wikipedia added Blues too and I guess the song "Nothing else matters" has something to do with Blues too. D@rk ^talk 15:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

I deleted the redirect you listed at RfD and that from the usertalk page. Seeing as that was your old account, you could have requested their speedy deletion by adding {{db-u1}} to the pages. WjBscribe 00:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi

You say you are an experienced wikipedian. Maybe you are, but you do not act like that. You edit as you would not know what Five Pillars of Wikipedia are. What you do is just stupid edit war. You told me you will revert my edits with no references and you self make such edits. I will accept your edit in Machine Head if you show sources - Show some reliable text(s) where some proffesionals doubt about MH genre. Otherwise you are vandalising Wikipedia.--Lycantrophe (talk) 09:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

heh. Ok I see you're pretty stubborn. Im better gonna leave it man..--Lycantrophe (talk) 13:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Warring

Prepare for an edit war. Nothing was happening after I reported Twsx for edit warring (even though I got blocked twice for doing the same thing for a much shorter period of time, though I regret my actions) so I have reverted Twsx's edits to Amon Amarth and Dissection. Get ready, because I'm willing to bet Twsx is about to wage a major edit war with massive edits in a short period of time whenever he gets on. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Well, yes, Amon Amarth possibly needs semi-protection for a while. I've been watching it, and vandalism has been reverted as of late. Bearian (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I semi-protected it until 29 Dec. 2007, and listed it for review by other sysops at WP:RFPP. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you a member of Wikiproject Metal?

I was just running down the list. Do have a former name on the list or something? Respond on my talk page. Thundermaster^TRUC 11:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

[4] - The I.P. before my version removed speed metal and I reverted that. I had no idea what the order was before; so don't think it was me who screwed up ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh no! That's cool. I was just a little worried that you thought I'd screwed up :-D Have a nice new year buddy! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 19:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Metal Archives 667: the Endless Conundrum

I see you've just reverted the edits I made to Technical Death Metal. I absolutely see where you're coming from regarding the lack of decent sources for underground musical genres. This is an acknowledged problem. However, the solution to that is certainly not to run against policy and use Internet user-edited sites as a source. You may as well cite Wikipedia itself if that were the case. Metal Archives is unfortuantely not a site that may be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. It really is that simple. Now, no-one here wants to get into an edit war; what i hope we all want is to make the site a better resource. I don't have an obvious solution to what is clearly a very real problem, and as such I'm not going to immediately undo your revert. I think as a community of people editing the Wikipedia metal pages we need to decide how we're going to go about improving it by agreeing to use only legitimate sources. User-edited websites are never, ever going to qualify. What we need is commercially published articles from books and magazines. This may be harder work than citing metal Archives or My Mate Who Really Knows His Shit About Metal's Website, but it is what we have to do in order to move forward. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Arntor.jpg

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

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

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Pantheon (band) logo.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've recently found out you had reverted the aforementioned image to the state it had been uploaded by me. If I may ask a favor of you, would be so kind as to determine what template should I use for it? I can see from your userpage that you have quite some experience with music-related articles, so I believe it won't be a problem for you. Let me know of your decision. Thanks. ILorbb | Talk 15:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Galleryofsuicide.jpg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Summoning2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Summoning2.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:MorbidAngelLogo.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

What am I to do?

Hey, it's been a while since we last talked. What can be done about this logo issue? I mean, every time I get on wikipedia I seem more messages telling me logos that I uploaded have been removed and it's pissing me off! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Funeralbandimage.jpeg

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

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clutchlogo.png)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How are you?

I was wondering, how do I make the show/hide feature like you have for the slayer musical infobox thing on your user page. Thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the code. I actually figured out another way to hide/show things, but thanks nonetheless. I couldn't help but notice that it seems you barely get on anymore. There's nothing wrong with this, of course, I just happened to notice. The last month you you didn't get on at all. It would seem you did only 4 edits. Just curious, I guess. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal fashion

What do you think of this article? I think it is incredibly shitty. I put it up for deletion. If you agree (or disagree by some chance) with my reasoning cast your vote, please. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Static-X

I have watched the whole debate over whether Static-X is nu-metal rage on for God only knows how long. They came out at a time when nu-metal was hitting and they are always lumped into that category with Korn and Disturbed. Maybe there are some influences but as far as song structure they fall more into industrial. Even the band themselves don't think they are. I really don't care if the page says nu-metal if it makes everyone happy. I am not going to revert that or lose any sleep because truthfully it would be more of a hassle to argue over it. :) I just want to ask that you participate in the discussion page before making those kinds of edits because if not it always turns into an edit war. So let's work together. Thanks StereoDevil (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok let me try to make it clear. My message was to explain why I wanted to have discussion. If you just change it without discussing it, it keeps turning into an edit war. There are discussions on it on the talk page. Like I said before I don't really care that it says nu-metal, in fact it's probably better like that. So let's not argue about it. StereoDevil (talk) 12:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional note - You violated WP:3RR on the Venom (band) article. "Only applying guidelines and agreements" does not entitle you to 4 reverts. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kameejl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not revert 4 times within 24 hours

Decline reason:

You are correct that the blocking admin was involved with the conflict and shouldn't have blocked you; however, I (a neutral admin) agree that the block was should have been done. Doing 4 reverts in 24 hours + 2 minutes isn't muich better than 4 reverts in 24 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

{{unblock|I did not revert 4 times within 24 hours, and couldn't revert another time for about 17 hours (that would break the 3RR rule). If reverting 4 times in more than 24 hours is not allowed, it should be reflected in the rules. I had no intention of reverting an additional time (as I don't want to break the rules). This block was superimposed too early and needs to be reverted.}} Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note that 3RR does not entitle you to make 3 reverts as that is still classed as edit warring, also note that you don't need to make 4 reverts within a 24 hour period per se. You were still edit warring, please be aware of this when you return from your block. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 08:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be biased since you were part of this 'war'. I did not break any rules, in fact, I was applying guidelines. If you're not OK with the guidelines, please try to change them, do not block people who apply them. This block is totally ungrounded. I need to have a second opinion. Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted above, "applying guidelines" does NOT (Extra emphasis there) entitle you to make superfluous reverts. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't prohibit me from reverting either, as long as I stay within the set limits (like the 3RR rule), which I did. This block was introduced too early and should be reverted. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts. Please be aware of this. Cheers. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not explicitly prohibit 3 reverts within 24 hours. Four reverts are explicitly prohibited. I did NOT break the 3RR rule so you cannot block me for breaking it. After my last edit I couldn't revert for 17 hours (it would break the 3RR rule). What's the use for a 24 hour block if I couldn't edit for 17 hours? I was punished before I did something wrong. Please revert the block. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

March 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Additional note - You violated WP:3RR on the Venom (band) article. "Only applying guidelines and agreements" does not entitle you to 4 reverts. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kameejl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not revert 4 times within 24 hours

Decline reason:

You are correct that the blocking admin was involved with the conflict and shouldn't have blocked you; however, I (a neutral admin) agree that the block was should have been done. Doing 4 reverts in 24 hours + 2 minutes isn't muich better than 4 reverts in 24 hours. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kameejl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not revert 4 times within 24 hours, and couldn't revert another time for about 17 hours (that would break the 3RR rule). If reverting 4 times in more than 24 hours is not allowed, it should be reflected in the rules. I had no intention of reverting an additional time (as I don't want to break the rules). This block was superimposed too early and needs to be reverted.

Decline reason:

It is specifically reflected in the rules. Please reread WP:3RR and WP:EW. 3RR does not entitle you to 4 reverts in 24 hours and 2 minutes. — Yamla (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Please note that 3RR does not entitle you to make 3 reverts as that is still classed as edit warring, also note that you don't need to make 4 reverts within a 24 hour period per se. You were still edit warring, please be aware of this when you return from your block. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 08:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be biased since you were part of this 'war'. I did not break any rules, in fact, I was applying guidelines. If you're not OK with the guidelines, please try to change them, do not block people who apply them. This block is totally ungrounded. I need to have a second opinion. Kameejl ^(Talk) 08:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As I've noted above, "applying guidelines" does NOT (Extra emphasis there) entitle you to make superfluous reverts. Thanks. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't prohibit me from reverting either, as long as I stay within the set limits (like the 3RR rule), which I did. This block was introduced too early and should be reverted. Kameejl ^(Talk) 12:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, 3RR does not entitle you to 3 reverts. Please be aware of this. Cheers. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 13:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

3RR does not explicitly prohibit 3 reverts within 24 hours. Four reverts are explicitly prohibited. I did NOT break the 3RR rule so you cannot block me for breaking it. After my last edit I couldn't revert for 17 hours (it would break the 3RR rule). What's the use for a 24 hour block if I couldn't edit for 17 hours? I was punished before I did something wrong. Please revert the block. Kameejl ^(Talk) 13:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kameejl/formatGenres.js

What is that? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Really? Kameejl, I may have to consult with a few more admins about this Java script code. That's okay, right? I fear you may use the code for auspicious means. Sorry to be blunt. Regards, Scarian^{Call me Pat} 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, of course. But still, when I know that you partake in a contentious issue which happens to be centred about "genre formatting" - that is when I get worried. But don't worry, I'll get DerHexer or BetaCommand to look over your script to tell me what it does, then we'll see if the script is helpful and if it should be published for other users to use too :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 09:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I can tell you what it is (was), but you already assumed correctly. It provides a function that will search through all HTML table elements and replace, guess what, commas with line breaks in some instances (oh, which could it be?). Looking over it for 30 seconds I didn't make out where this script is called, though. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)