User talk:Navnløs/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Funny

If you would like to see the definition of ignorance, check out the bottom of the death metal discussion page. Imagine a film critic drawing conclusions about a movie he hasn't even seen. Basically that's what going on here, lol.

Backstory: I had a legit source (documentary) proving black metal came before death metal, and cited it a while ago. The other guy refuses to accept it, even though he hasn't even seen the documentary. He instead defends some unverifiable source, which only has any evidence of existence on Wikipedia. Even as I provide him YouTube clips of my source, he still appears to just not get it. Unreal. Logical Defense (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

He has since apologized and admitted to not understanding the situation from the start. So whatever, good for him. Logical Defense (talk) 21:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Even though I do not believe in the evil King Odmontius, I do believe that Iron Maiden will rule the world of heavy metal for 3000 years. Master Redyva (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL, indeed, but it was still vandalism and had to be removed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Close Call

The list was a sure goner dude. You need to really put work into improving the article. Of course, it will not be a one man army. Ask me if you need help. Welt^anschaunng 14:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Also can you think of other information which can be provided alongwith the albums, so that the list doesn't remain one dimensional, you get what I mean? Welt^anschaunng 15:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well the speed list has it too. Well the thrash list doesn't have citations, so well I will do that as well. Welt^anschaunng 18:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure, there is nothing wrong with the code though. Welt^anschaunng 19:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, I checked the code and it was OK. Something else is wrong Welt^anschaunng 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Some help for you

Hi Navnlos, I saw your recent additions to WP:ANI. At the top of the page there is some advice on how to list incidents. One very important thing (That I've noted on both of your requests) is providing diffs to prove what you're saying. Also important is notifying any user(s) involved with {{ANI-notice}} on their talk pages (It's good etiquette to do so). On a different note, your talk page is rather long and rather than just deleting stuff would you like to archive it instead? Take a look at: Help:Archiving a talk page. Or ask me to help you. Hope these tips are satisfactory! Scarian^Talk 19:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll tell you what, I'll do you a favour. I'll archive all of your old stuff for you. You concentrate on your school stuff; it's important. Btw, I've never actually had a disagreement with you. That's the funny thing. I'm always neutral on everything (Even if it seems that I'm not) and I've never been one for the other with commas/breakers. Btw, I'm sorry if I do seem to come across as "high and mighty" - I just tend to comment on when people go wrong with policy. You're not the only one I've pointed out errors to, okay? I have never meant to annoy you or whatever, I just like to keep Wikipedia on the straight and narrow. I'll archive your page for you. We'll talk later. Scarian^Talk 20:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your hate for slipknot

Can i ask-is your hate towards the music itself or the fact that they have become mainstream following the Vol.3 album? if its the latter then i have a suggestion: get a hold of Crowz, the unreleased slipknot album. i was beginning to hate them too but then i found this album and now its the only slipknot i listen to. just a suggestion.

Black Metulz ist krieg!! the juggreserection (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

oh. well, i guess i have a broader taste of music than others. But i do agree with you on hating new music.the juggreserection (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Fredrik_Nordström.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Fredrik_Nordström.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MECU≈talk 21:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just remembered something

Yeah I was supposed to reply to something you said. "Justice" - there is no such thing as "justice" on Wikipedia. Please don't think of a block or a warning as "justice". Blocks/warnings are not punitive. They are preventative. They prevent Wikipedia being damaged. Remember, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a democracy. Be careful when you say "justice". I think what you mean is: Perhaps the blocking admin did not fully take into account the other parties' actions? You should be complaining to the blocking admin, not myself or anyone else. I hope that clears things up with that whole avenue, buddy. Take care, friend. Scarian^Talk 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxes, Finals and Logos

Thank you for the compliment. :) the color scheme is somewhat inspired by Wintersun's album cover you know. Good luck to you too. I have mine at the start of next week but I have these 2 huge projects to do but I decided to see whats happening here for a bit until I get back to work. Oh and a couple logos of yours should be in png/svg format and those that are "psable" (photoshop) should be made transparent such as a logo with a black background and white logo color can be inverted and worked on from there. I have a student version of ps and I was thinking on just hanging it loose on the holidays and just add band logos mostly in the time being. So, if you have logos that need to be psed I'll be welcome to do them sometime. --CircafuciX (talk) 01:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I know what you mean, my comp is so full with music that I bought an external hard drive to fit all of it!!! (along with album covers, logos, etc). Just let me know later if you have something for me.

I finally have all my projects done and it's about time I did, so I should be able to edit a bit more. Also, I heard about the "golden holiday edits" (or the days of the year where vandalism is on a low because of vacationing (so it seems)). It made me think that I should enjoy Wikipedia more during the holidays but I WILL NOT EDIT on Christmas or New Years day!! --CircafuciX (talk) 17:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Twsx

I'll have a word with the user. And I don't think that admin is active very often. But well done for controlling your revert finger :-) - It's better to be patient than to be blocked. Scarian^Talk 18:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've asked Twsx why he made those changes when we all agreed to stop. I think you should just leave them as they are until discussion takes place. It's not going to hurt anyone if you left it there until we got this figured out (What I'm saying is; if you changed it back again hours later - you'd still be edit warring, ja?). Thank you for your patience and for taking the time to keep it cool and not revert. Scarian^Talk 18:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think it's that much of a problem. You'll cause more problems than you hope to solve if you do decide to revert. Ich spreche nur wenig, aber mein Schwedischer Partner spricht Deutsches! Scarian^Talk 18:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Quorthon

Well actually the link provided in the article linked to Quorthon's article (ie Fosberg's article). So in that sense, I thought that it didn't belong to the list. I guess I was in a hurry last night. Pantera, 2ton predator and this one crept up the list. So any news from the AfD front? Welt^anschaunng 10:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

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

Re: Yo

Hey, I am never on this anymore, only when I am bored at college I go on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by METALFREAK04 (talk • contribs) 11:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Please no more reverting

Re your reading of the talk page Are we looking at the same page here? A "consensus that specifically stylized logos have a place in the infobox" has most definately not been reached, the only consensus I see so far is that they do not belong in the name field. Their inclusion elsewhere isn't being prohibited by anyone involved in that discussion. I strongly urge you to not just revert if your edit means replacing the image in the name field.--Alf ^melmac 21:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Argh. I'm not so sure I agree with what you say but I will cease the reverts (unless more are done to the pages I have already reverted). I'm not so sure I get the point of putting the logo somewhere else in the article. I mean is the reader of the article blind?! It says the name of the band right at the top! And it says it again below that as the first word of the article. Is the reader really going to look at the infobox, see the logo, and say "OMFG! I have no idea what this article is about! I don't know the name of the band because this illegible logo is in the way!!!! OH NOES!" I think we can give the reader more credit than this...Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes in honesty the reader of the article may be blind and using a screen reader, or like someone else I know, have dyslexia and just not to have to wrangle over the words in their head, they use a screen reader too.--Alf ^melmac 22:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

And yes maybe it's just me, but what does this one say?, admitedly that did look the worst of the lot but no, really can't make out the name, words in text field would be better.--Alf ^melmac 22:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Alf... have a crayon :D. 156.34.238.173 (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you actually serious? You're kidding, right? If the user was using a screen reader maybe we should just take out pictures alltogether!!!! In all seriousness if a person was using a screen reader, don't you think they would still be able to "see" the name of the band? I mean, do you think they will go right to the infobox and be totally confused by the logo? Don't you think they would "see" the name of the band somewhere!? You're just not giving these people any credit. Are they going to go right to the infobox and subsequently miss everything else and not know the name of the band? I mean, if they are on the band's page didn't they just search the name of the band or click on a link to that band? Wouldn't they already know the band's name? Even if they didn't I'm sure they'd see the band's name. How about we just eliminate every inconvenience altogether. I mean, after all, some people find an ecyclopedia too hard to use, right? So let's destroy wikipedia!...Once again, in seriousness, we want an encyclopedia accessible and easy to use, but I still don't understand why that means giving up logos. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am actually being serious. I have had one articles edited by a blind wikipedian. My upload will evidence the fact that I'm not on an "image free" kick. Yes I know 99.9% will know they're on the band's page, I'm not going to address any of the rhetoric you make point to "So let's destroy wikipedia!" as it employs absurd logic.--Alf ^melmac 22:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to at least try and work with you guys (I know you both are somewhat "big" people, more contributions, etc.), so what would you say to a logo thing in the infobox. A specific place to put the logo, and if there is none then the area is left blank just like many of the things in the infobox are usually left blank. What do you think? I'm gonna guess you guys are against this for some reason, too, but it's worth a try. I think this would eliminate all the fighting about the logo altogether. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The best place to express is that on the discussion page. As I said, not a single person in that discussion is "no-logos-none-at-all" mentality, there are Fair Use worriers, witterers (like me) who would like the best deal for the customer - INFORMATION - and other assorted sorts, but none of them are minded to ban logos per se.--Alf ^melmac 22:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well I suppose that makes a little more sense. It seems more intelligble, anyways. I will discuss it on that page, as I feel all band pages should have logos. As for my absurd logic, I was trying to be absurd and sarcastic to make a point. Anyways, you seem a great deal more open than some other editors on here. I just don't like the idea of all those logos being deleted by the time they are needed again( even if they are put somewhere else)! It takes a while to find 'em and upload them and all. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

ARGH EXHAUSTION

I just added about 70 logos back into the bodies of articles... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

re: Judas Priest

For logos I started at the bottom of the "metal" barrel and I'm working my way up. It would've taken awhile to get up out of the Black/Death/Power lists/categories and into the Heavy/Thrash/Speed realms. I would have made it there eventually. While I have your attention or while you have mine Earlier you re-added a dead logo link to the Black Sabbath article. Black Sabbath have never had a logo in their entire 38 year history. The incorrect logo that had been added was simply the stylised text from the Master of Reality album. The only time it was ever used. The erroneous logo image was speedy deleted because it was being used for dishonest purposes and was, in fact jeopardising Wikipedia as a verifiable resource. Your earlier re-add contained text saying that it was "The official logo of Black Sabbath that has graced all of their releases". Which is a blatant lie. You say you've added about 70 logos into articles this evening. How many of them were valid "official" logos? Will you have time to go through and confirm the "official" status of each logo with a reference? It has been suggested on the template talk page to use that strategy. Unfortunately it was proposed as an arguement to place to logos back into the infoboxes... which is now a dead issue. IF you can quickly add references to all the logos that you've added today that would be great. If not, based on your careless dishonesty on the Black Sabbath page, an admin will have to admin-rollback all your edits for today until validity and verification can be checked. That would be a waste of your entire days work. 156.34.212.143 (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What? - Navnlos if that's true (Which, I believe it is true, seeing as Black Sabbeth have never had an official logo) then I am disgusted. How could you lie like that to push a WP:POINT? I just don't understand it... Why would you do that? Just to prove a point...? That's ridiculous behaviour. Please explain yourself. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 09:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I...I...I can explain!!!!!!!!! (sobs) You're hurting my feelings by both being so mad at me! It was an accident!!!!!! I was sleep deprived! Give me time!!!! How can I possibly add a reference to all those logos!!!! Cut me some slack, please! I assure you both that the logos I have been adding are all official! You can tell just by looking at them, and I know many of those bands!!! Why would I add fake logos in!?!?!?! (sobs) IM SORRY, DAMN!!!! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Logos

Hey, nice job putting them back in the articles. You're probably right, I'm fighting a losing battle. They would look much better in the infobox, but, well, better than nothing. And yeah, it's good to see a kindred metal spirit here :-) Generally, I listen to everything that is melodic or, better yet, symphonic. And that includes black metal too. BTW, where do you hail from? If you're in North America, there is a Paganfest coming this spring (Ensiferum, Tyr, Turisas and Eluveitie). Looks like it will be an awesome event... Cheers! Óðinn (talk) 15:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the respect is very much mutual :-) Anyway, I'll stop my involvement with the logos discussion for now. Like you, I also have a real life, which is more interesting than splitting hairs over copyright dilemmas. I have a feeling this issue will be raised again at some point. Hopefully, next time it will involve people who hold less sacrosanct views on perceived copyright violations.

Btw, I wouldn't get my hopes up for Wintersun's participation. They seem to be busy with their elusive second album. Which is unfortunate; Jari is truly a Metal God :-) Óðinn (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Right-o

Well ok, i understand that you will see my name on such pages as metallica so that really just means we are both Metallica fans in itself. And you may remember what all this crap started as but i dont. So im gonna let it go. But ill give you this, alot of people have pissed me off on wikipedia, but you did the best job at that.---The Great One 11:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, fuck wikipedia

I put all those logos back in only to be reverted by User:IllaZilla so fuck wikipedia. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Commas Vs Linebreaks

Hey; I just wanted to let you know I have started a sub page of my own about this "Comma vs Linebreaks" debate; where I am assuming a neutral party. The page isn't there to argue my points, for either you nor anyone else to argue theirs, it is instead there for this edit war to hopefully come to and end, so that you and Twsx can reach a decision. Please try to engage in the debate here, but please also treat it as just that; a debate to reach an end to the edit war rather then a place to argue your points. The page can be found here - thanks ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yo (same)

Yeah, I only go on it when I have information and see something wrong with the wiki's information on it.

And i am on your user page :)

METALFREAK04 (talk) 10:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

yeah, I mean, I never have time for this aswell as other things and I never really got into it like some people do. I rather do wiki's on last.fm than here. METALFREAK04 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rush (band). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Funeral 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WTF!! I already warned IP Man! He's the one edit warring damnit!. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR is already violated. Reported to AN/3: Link. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OMG...you just had to get involved. I warned IP Man first only to be warned by Funeral afterward. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is "warrer" a word? 156.34.223.124 (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Vielleicht. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe as in "fer sher". Or possibly as in "huh?" 156.34.223.124 (talk) 23:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

(I was tempted to say "Yeah, maybe, as in maybe I'll take this and..." but stopped myself.) "Possibly," but it doesn't matter. I was only trying to get my point across. Why are you even talking to me about this? This conversation is surely inane and not going anywhere, yes? Well then, I'm glad that's all settled. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Edit warring: on Rush (band). Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

—slakr^\ talk / 00:10, 6 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Eh, I can't say that I care too much right now that I'm being blocked. I gotta say, though, you are making a huge mistake. I am not the one edit warring on Rush or any page. I was protecting that page that that IP user was edit warring on. Go ahead and look back through the edits. I did not start this edit war. The page's genre delimiters were fine, for months, until that IP user came along and changed it. I was pointing out that no problem equals no fix, but the 156 IP User continued to edit war. I'm not the one who should be blocked.

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, being "right" is not a valid defense for breaking the Three Revert Rule, and neither is "I didn't start it". Regardless of who is right, or who made the first move, the rule was clearly broken, and thus merits this block. Please do not continue the same path of editing as before this block, or there will be additional sanctions. Instead, seek dispute resolution, such as a request for comment or a request for third opinion, even if it means leaving the wrong version visible while you are seeking outside input. Leave the wrong version until AFTER uninvolved parties from RFC or R3O have commented and agree that it should be changed to your version. That is the proper way to avoid getting into these kinds of problems. After consensus has been established, THEN make your changes... — Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 6 February 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.

By the way, please consider reading my rationale. Cheers. --slakr^\ talk / 00:20, 6 February 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Do you realize how much you are not making sense? Not to be offensive, but firstly, I did not break WP:CON and it was in fact the other user who did. That user broke the consensus of a group of editors (that user incl.) that came together to try and put a stop to the edit warring of genre delimiters by leaving all of them alone in their format when the agreement was agreed to. Also, Jayron mentioned that it doesn't matter who started it, but only that someone broke the rules and must be punished. Well, gee, I see me getting blocked and the other user who was edit warring not even getting so much as a warning. The problem with having two templates displaying both the line break and comma break method (therefore allowing both) is that people still like what they like and it seems some comma breakers still prefer their method so they go around changing pages, but they can't be stopped or punished, oh no. No, instead it will be line breakers who are punished. It's not even like i go around changing pages to line breaks. As I said I only try to keep pages as they were when that agreement (a consensus) was made, that some people would like to break. Simple enough? Nope, I'm sure it isn't. Oh and one more very important thing. Slakr (the admin who blocked me) said this: "For the record, an article won't get demoted from featured article status over such a minor formatting issue"....UHHHH!? THEY WHY ARE YOU BLOCKING ME!?!?! PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO TELL THE 156-MULTIPLE-IP-MAN THAT!!!! I agree with Slakr and I told the 156IP Man the exact same thing!!! Perhaps you should READ THIS! As you can see i was saying the same thing Slakr was saying. It was the 156IP Man who was the one instigating the changes on Rush, claiming that the article had FA status and that this was reason enough to make it have comma breaks (totally ignoring the fact that Rush had had line breaks for months with no complaints). Therefore it makes this whole point moot. And shows yet another way that wikipedia is lacking things...namely rules that work.

Decline reason:

Edit warring is always disruptive, and does not help the encyclopedia. You were edit warring, and that is unacceptable. Please, wait out the duration of this short block and once it is expired, do not edit war with people, even if you believe you are right about reverting. — Rjd0060 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 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.