User talk:Eddyspeeder/Archive 1

Archive 1

BeOS and Ogg

Hello. I noticed you are a BeOS user. I'm wondering if BeOS (and/or Haiku) have any support for Ogg technologies (Vorbis, Theora, FLAC, etc). If you could inform me on my talk page, it would be much appreciated.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 15:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Very awesome, and thanks for the reply. Listen, is it possible for you to provide that same screenshot or a similar one in PNG format? If it'd be okay with you, I'd like to use the screenshot in either the Vorbis or Ogg articles, but the 256 colors of GIF make it unbearable to look at it :|

Oh, and again, thanks.--Saoshyant ^{talk / contribs} (I don't like Wikipedophiles) 10:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Diagonal method

I didn't propose the article for deletion, I was the admin who deleted it. I have restored the article and listed it for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diagonal method for further, wider discussion. --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 03:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! I replied in your user discussion page. Eddyspeeder 22:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

no problems

cheers, Tom B (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Aquaponics

Glad to help. I do find deletions to be rather painful, but to me sometimes it helps to clean out everything to redo the "skeleton" of an article to get it back to shape. Sadly this means that deletion of rescue-able text is unavoidable. However, when good ground work has been laid, the deleted sentences can be reclaimed from the articles history and put back in, and this is what I plan to do. And yes, the Barbados section needs surgery Jeanpetr (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

It looks a lot better than before. Some commercial sites should be included but only the "significant ones", I'll leave that up to you. Great work in general! Jeanpetr (talk) 18:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The function sections has grown a bit and now needs some subsectioning, perhaps into different units/subsystems of aquaponics. I think the "Balancing the symbiosis" idea is good, however it deserves perhaps in own subsection. The overall homeostasis of the aquatic environment should be emphasized in this subsection but it has to also be well cited from the get-go, otherwise it may become something akin to original research. Jeanpetr (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Viaducts

I suppose we go with the convention. On the other hand large bridges built over valleys in English are normally called viaducts and were also called viaducts in mid 19th Germany and still are in German Switzerland. The term Talbrücke was invented as part of 19th century nationalism, when Germans removed many words of Romance origin from their language. Translating it back into English literally seems odd to me because we don't normally use the expression "valley bridge" in English. Göltzschtalbrücke and Elstertalbrücke could of course also be translated as Göltzsch Viaduct or Elster Viaduct.--Grahame (talk) 00:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Bridges

Dear Eddy I do not feel strongly enough about this matter to enter a further comment to the general talk page. But it seems I disagree with Grahamec!

My personal view is that the word "viaduct" is a word that is beginning to sound old fashioned in English. It is also a word which seems to mean slightly different things to different people.

We do not have many Talbrücken in England. High or very long bridges crossing deep or very wide valleys need big mountains and/or big road/railroad needs, which means that for many English people such structures are often foreign before you start wondering what to call them. (Brenner Autobahn usw. Maybe, closer to home, also bits of the new TGV line running east from Brussel past Leuven/Tienen/St Truiden.) Where the Brits have relatively high mountains (Scotland, Wales), they don't have enough roads and railroads to justify huge bridge (or viaduct) investment, and any "viaducts" that survive tend to be very old and underused railroad bridges. The same considerations apply to Hochbrücken. You CAN call them viaducts. You MIGHT very well refer to them as viaducts, or as viaduct style bridges in the text. But I would argue that you do not NEED the word viaduct a a general prescriptive rule for the article titles.

So for article titles I would, if I were king of wikipedia, usually avoid the word viaduct. But I can imagine a situation (for instance involving a nineteenth century structure in an anglophone country that has always been known as a viaduct in the local language) where "viaduct" might be appropriate. So IF I were issuing guidance, I would say that for article titles you should always call the thing a bridge unless there is a very good reason not to.

Users of English language wikipedia increasingly include Germans who are these days being encouraged to use English more and more. The English people use in Germany tends to be a simplified form of English. German television still shows anglophone films(movies) dubbed into English (to the amusement of Dutch people who will usually see these same films(movies) with anglophone soundtracks and Dutch available only for users of the subtitles). Millions of the more scholarly Germans will certainly know the word viaduct, but a lot of the kids coming out of business school or uni with commercial or engineering degrees may not find the word viaduct so familiar. This is another constituency for whom, I suggest, the word bridge works better.

BUT (to repeat) (1) I do not feel strongly enough about this to enter anything like a vote on the appropriate discussion page and (2) despite having married a Dutch woman with a degree in linguistics, I am not a believer in issuing too many rules on this type of thing.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi Eddyspeeder. Thank you very much for the barnstar. It's always nice to feel your efforts are appreciated; it's one of the things keeps you going! All the best. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

You're very welcome, but you absolutely deserve it! It was a pleasure working with you, hopefully we'll meet again. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Braab69

Hi Eddyspeeder, thanks for the effort you put into the Netherlands section of the Academic_Degree page. As you probably seen already, I have been out of it for a while and am not sure how well my own quest measures up with the actuality of the current day. However, I see you now divided very diplomatically into a pre and post Bologna situation. Do you agree that it perhaps would be better to focus on the current day situation and delete the pre Bologna text? Would also make it more concise... And if you agree, can you do that, since it is blatantly obvious my knowledge is dated there ;-)

Groetjes,

Braab69 10:32 CET -- 16MAR2011 —Preceding undated comment added 09:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC).

Reply

Hi Eddyspeeder,

Like I said: I am afraid my knowledge is severely dated with living and working outside the NL for close to 20 years. Therefore I asked BartSander, whether he could have a go...

Braab 16:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The articles you submited to assessment

Hi.

Your articles are pretty good, for real, those are some of the best start-rated articles I've seen, only that articles need to have at least of prose section apart for the lead section to be a C, usually a reception section is encouraged, but background, theme, production are all usual and good.

Don`t hesitate to ask if you have any doubt or need help.

Looking forward to your work. Zidane tribal (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Dizzy Mizz Lizzy (album)

As for weak points, the article needs the reception template with the most grades possible up to 10, perhaps a sample, definitively a longer lead section, if possible a more elaborated personnel section, maybe a background or production section, i`m sorry to sound a**hole-ish and picky but in my experience this things not only will get you the B but will put the article in good track for a GA.

I would love to rate it a B but i`m afraid a can`t just jet. Sorry. Zidane tribal (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

So glad I was able to help you.Zidane tribal (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Crack Baby Athletic Association

Hi. Please do not add unsourced personal observations on pop cultural references or trivia to articles, as you did with this edit to Crack Baby Athletic Association, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of Verifiability, No Original Research, and WP:TRIVIA. Wikipedia requires that such material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable sources. Where cultural references in works of satire or parody are concerned, the source must explicitly mention the work's use of it. Relying instead on personal interpretation or observation is original research, and using sources to form original conclusions not explicitly in those sources is synthesis, which is a form of original research. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Even in scientific literature does one not need to explicate obvious contents, i.e. when writing a paper I do not need to provide references to statements that are overwhelmingly clear. In this particular case I felt there was no need to further support that the programme's contents strongly refer to Sinterklaas and that having a trivia section at all (albeit without references) outweighed the status-quo of this article, as it clearly falls behind on other articles on South Park episodes. Furthermore I believe it could encourage others to provide proper sources in due time. But I'm not bothered by it; feel free to keep the page minimal as it is. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

reply re: dates

Hi! I've replied on my talk page. --Delirium (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Mads Langer

Per your request at WikiProject Denmark, I have added Mads Langer and assessed it as a c-class article, but I think it is very close to being a b-class. Danmuz (talk) 10:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Re:Queensrÿche

No problem. I hadn't checked on those articles in a while, and it seemed to me that there had been a lot of anonymous editors out there putting their own take on things. It seems important to keep things as neutral as possible when there's so much controversy surrounding the band's status nowadays. Friginator (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work!

Good work expanding Todd La Torre article! A few edits ago it was a minimal stub and now its a nice sized article. --Neo139 (talk) 19:23, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back!

I left a note on your talk page at commons. I can upload a version here for you as fair use. I can at the commons as well if you have the recent creator's permission to publish under a 'free licence'.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem at all. I added more info to the bottom of the help desk (not the copyright) copyright post at commons. I think I am correct about it but other editors may feel different.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Why have you had enough

Just wondering; is it because of the rudeness of more experienced users towards less experienced ones? Lachlan Foley 08:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I see; thanks. I'm guilty of a short temper on here, so I'll make a bigger effort to be kinder now that I know that it discourages users (not that this fact shouldn't be entirely obvious...). Lachlan Foley 19:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Haha that's cool man! Just assume that if it's not completely obvious someone is purposefully vandalizing, the user probably tried to contribute with the best intentions, and you should be fine ;-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 10:13, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Queensryche

Hi, I have seen you doing work on the Queensryche articles recently, and I like what you did with Frequency Unknown, after I started the page. Additionally, I noticed you saw my draft for the as yet unnamed album by the La Torre version of Queensryche.

Due to upcoming events which will cause me to spend less time on Wikipedia (and thus narrow down what articles and topics I focus on), and having noticed the work that you have done on the Queensryche articles, I have decided to allow you to edit that draft if you so wish, and to put the draft live when a title is announced, should you see an announcement before I do. I do reserve the right to edit the draft, or put it live myself if I happen to come across a title. But as I already said, I have other things that need my attention, and this is one of the things that I'm pushing to the side, and am not going out of my way to work on anymore. Also if you do decide to edit the draft, just make sure you are logged in, because I revert all IP edits that are done in my userspace and drafts.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you man! I'm honored you're allowing me to do this and I gladly accept. I was pleasantly surprised when I discovered you also had your draft for Frequency Unknown ready, as I had not even noticed that yet, so I'd also like to compliment you on the work you did there. It already provided a great framework and I was happy to improve that. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. As I said, I have other things that I need to focus on, so unless I just happen to see something relevant to add to the draft, I probably won't be touching it much. I just don't have time to be researching for that one. As for Frequency Unknown, I saw it on Blabbermouth, and saw that no one created an article, so I whipped one up quick. I like to take my time when I can (as you have seen with the drafts I have linked on my page), but other times, I can whip up something quick, too. Thanks for the compliment! I'm just a music fan (especially classic rock/metal) and I like to see ever-improving coverage of it on here.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question about Lita Ford, I think it was probably this blabbermouth article: GEOFF TATE's QUEENSRŸCHE: New Album Details Revealed - Mar. 4, 2013 It does mention her, but I don't recall 100% if this was the one I was going off of or not at the time. As for the current state of her involvement, I have no idea. Hope the article helps. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That edit looks good, although you probably don't need to get too far into detail about Lita Ford's position regarding which camp she is in. Maybe just paraphrase her position rather than include the entire quote.

I actually looked back over the full article for the first time in quite a while, and I am quite impressed with what I see. I don't know if you have done so before, but after all the chart positions, sales, comparison with the other Queensryche's album and reviews come out, and all the reaction settles off, you might want to try to get the article rated as a good article (or featured article, if the quality is deemed high enough).--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:00, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, right now, I would say that the article is at least C class, and possibly B class. If you want try to get it as a good article candidate, I'd be more than glad to try to help the process along by providing a second set of eyes to help with spotting typos, and small easy to miss stuff like that. I've got 3 or 4 good article projects under my belt, so if you have any questions, I'd be willing to try to help you if I can. I may not be able to help immediately, but I will get back to you when I can. A word of advice though if you decide to go the GA route, while there are standards for good articles, the little details (there are a lot of them, too) can sometimes be very arbitrary - what is good for one reviewer, another might not like.

If I get the chance, I might start a chart for the chart positions when they start being revealed. charts and tables are not that bad actually, but I always copy and paste the from another article's table, just replacing the info. If you want, when you see the positions though, you can just put them into prose int he article, and someone else (me or another editor will put em in a chart. Just make sure you include the citations for the positions.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:40, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, it's technically not Queensryche, but I did write up a brief article on GT's last solo album (Frequency Unknown notwithstanding), Kings & Thieves, if you wanted to look over that and do something with it. I wasn't planning on really doing anything with it, but it was a void that needed filled, I think.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems that someone else got an article on the QR/TLT up today. I saw it about 3:30 or so US Eastern time, and was going to move the draft to live, but seems that someone got to it first: Queensrÿche (2013 album)--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Audio samples

Hi Eddy. I was wondering if there's any possibility to add two audio samples for the songs "...And Justice for All" and "One" from the album ...And Justice for All. Your help would be very appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:04, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vic, sure no problem. I'll try do that tomorrow. What would be a great help, is if you could tell me which part of the song (30 seconds) I should use. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 03:21, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

• For "...And Justice for All" from 2:00 to 2:30 (short intro and the first strophe).
• For "One" from 3:20 to 3:52. That includes the acoustic guitar playing and James singing "Now the world has gone...". I think those 2 second won't be a problem since the song is 7:27.

If you don't mind, you can also insert them into the info box on their respective pages. Great thanks.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Vic, I had some time to do it today already, so there you go, thanks to your quick reply ;-) The rules are very strict for audio samples: it can only be 10% of the song length to a maximum of 30 seconds. And Wikipedia has a strict "fair use" police roaming around, but I think I managed to get a good 30-second sample out of One. I added the samples to the singles pages, and also added "One" to the page about the album ...And Justice for All. Metallica deserves to be heard on their singles pages :-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Great job Eddie. I'm trying to get A mark for the album's article and the samples will surely improve the odds. But I was wondering is there a category which contain all Metallica audios, something like the Category:Megadeth audio samples. Greetings again.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Apparently not yet, but you can create this category pretty easy. You can find the songs through a Google search (don't forget the two new ones that Google might not have found). Go to each audio clip's page, click "edit" and add to the bottom of each page:

[[Category:Metallica audio samples]]

I should do the same for the Queensrÿche audio samples I've added! Hope that helps :-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks buddy. Although I was positively surprised they were in such a large number. Think all of them are there.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

And can you rename the file EnterSandman.ogg to Metallica - Enter Sandman.ogg? It seems I can't.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:42, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, good work! Thanks to you, I've also discovered a lot of new things today! I made a category of all Queensrÿche audio samples, and later also a category of all Queensrÿche album covers (Metallica has such a category as well). Then I found out that most file names of the album covers were weird or they did not include the band name (like your EnterSandman.ogg), and I found out normal users can't rename files but have to file a request. I just did that for Enter Sandman, see the yellow box on the audio sample's page. You can see it's been added here :-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Me again. Really sorry for the disturbance, but I need a sample of Master of Puppets. Here's a link. Time from 1:00 to 1:30 (first strophe). Thought it was there (in the category), but I've been mistaken. Best regards.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, I'll get to it somewhere in the next couple of days. Currently have a couple of interviews on Queensrÿche that I want to process on Wikipedia. --Eddyspeeder (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensryche again

Ok, looks pretty good so far! I've been pretty busy lately, but I would be more than happy to contribute to it, as time allows. (I also added a link to it on my user page since that's usually how I go to my own drafts) Regarding TLT/QR, feel free to start a draft up for that one too.

As for the reception section of the new TLT/QR album, I have been working alot on that section for Megadeth's new Super Collider album, so I'm kinda in that mode recently. If i can find time, I would be happy to do some work there, too. As for GA, I'd have to take time to look over it. It's been about a year or so since I have done one last. It looks very good just glancing over it, but there's always some little issues that crop up in GA's. Great job on it though.

Thanks for letting me know, take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Rename requests....

Phew! *Wipes brow* - All done . Nikthestunned 15:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Queensryche

No problem! Keep up the great work on it! I'm sure it'll be GA worthy in no time. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

No worries....

...as I was kind of on new page patrol. Decent little articles, IMO. Keep it up :) — sparklism ^hey! 08:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re:McCartney

Hello Eddyspeeder. Thanks for the kind words. If you need any help in regards to GA status please feel free to ask (barring for me to review a GAN; reviewing is just a confusing mess to me). In addition to the 13, I think I've got another 5 or so still waiting to be reviewed. Best, yeepsi (Talk tonight) 16:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Kelly Gray

Just out of curiousity, why did you undo the Oven Mitts stuff I put in? I might not have added a link to the BdR post that coined the name but I can assure you that it originated there.

Again, not pissed off or anything, just curious.

Thanks.

SP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottparker0808 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Scott, check your talk page I hope the explanation I wrote there explains to you why I removed it and how you can add it in a way that works on Wikpedia . I'd be happy to help you with any further questions or some practical assistance or advice to add it. What it boils down to is this: "Oven Mitts" isn't exactly a flattering nickname (like "Whip"), nor is it neutral (like "SRock"), so adding it means it has to be done with some empathy, since we're talking about an actual person here. You will also need to have some sort of respectable news source that proves "Oven Mitts" is a widely accepted nickname for Gray (like interviews or items on official news sites). A quick search only showed me "fan posts", which do not count as authoritative sources for this (such as posts on BdR and other message boards, YouTube videos and comments, BM user comments, fan reviews and UrbanDictionary).

Anyway, check your talk page and keep me posted dude :-) --Eddyspeeder (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Queensryche - F.U. and the self titled + other stuff

Hi there. Thank you for your positive comments on my contributions to the Queensryche pages recently. I apologise for not replying sooner. I will say though that the "hilarious edits" section on my user page was just something for me to go back to and laugh at. I wasn't really expecting other users to take the time to read it too, but I'm pretty glad to hear that you did, even if it did catch me a little off guard at first! Haha.

I will go now to start working through the Queensryche self-titled album page. I did remember reading through it recently and noticing how long the reception section was. I believe it's beneficial to shorten certain things down to make it more to the point. I can imagine some readers getting impatient and not getting through these things, so I like to clean up where possible.

I also had a quick glance at your user page and I noticed you announced at one point you were giving up contributing to Wikipedia. I assume this isn't so much the case now, but I feel your pain! I've been through the same shit on other pages where I've felt that I've made reasonable contrributions but they keep getting reverted in favour of a more messy layout or a string of poorly written sentences, or both. I've been having this problem recently on Neil Turbin. I feel my interpretation of the "Anthrax" section is fairly well-structured and in chronological order, whereas the edit as it stands at the time of this writing is much more messy with some subjective statements and repetition of certain pieces of information. Just letting you know you're not the only person who has to tolerate these misfortunes.

Keep up the good work yourself, dude! :) Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey again. The thing about not going outside of the Queensrÿche stuff is understandable, really. I myself get a little fed up when moderators seem to ALWAYS think they are right and never bother seeing it from other people's point of view. With Queensrÿche and all its associated pages, there's bound to be a lot of editing what with the recent events in the band over the past year so, y'know, the more contributors, the merry.

Yeah, I saw that my edits were reverted about literally a minute after I made them. Talk about jumping to conclusion and assuming nothing I changed was any good...thanks for restoring the majority of my edits, though. I like what you've done with the reception section, too. I am considering doing a few more edits on the page, however, to make it less reliable on quotes. I'll have to see what I can do! Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey again, I've noticed that you've sorted out the issue with quotes on Queensryche which I am rather impressed with. Keep up the good work! Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, just writing to you again to say I am pleased with the overall progress on the Queensrÿche related articles. However, one thing that has been bugging me a little bit (though it probably doesn't need to) is that under "History" on the Queensrÿche article, the "with Todd La Torre" section is much longer than the "with Geoff Tate" section. I am just wondering if it would be a good idea to even it out a little bit, and if so, would it better to make the La Torre section a little shorter or expand on the Tate section? Of course, everything in the former is of relevance, but maybe there are pieces of information out there about the latter that could be of some use, but are being overlooked. I will consider editing it myself to add something onto the Tate section (maybe about his chances in court, so that it ends similarly to La Torre's section) but I'd like to try and get your opinion / feedback etc. seeing as you've done these articles a lot of justice in recent months. :) Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 22:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thank you for the feedback considering the length of the La Torre section + the split. I have started by creating an article on Rising West. When possible, could you check through it and see how it can be expanded + improved? Right now there isn't that much to it; for the History section I just copied all the information concerning Rising West from the Queensrÿche article (and subsequently shortened all the stuff on the Queensrÿche page itself) and added a little bit on the end about Queensrÿche with Todd La Torre, though obviously not too much as that isn't the main focus of the article. I plan to start thinking how to go about an article on the split in general soon. Thanks :) Vicious Friendly Fish (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Little misunderstanding about "One" sample

Hi. There appears to be minor misunderstanding about the sample. I meant the sample to last from 3:20 to 3:50 and to start with James singing "Now the world has gone..." and so on and so on till 3:50. Not a big deal anyway, but it would be nice to upgrade the sample again (if you have free time). BTW, the album's article received GA status. Cheers.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey Bik, at the moment I'm very busy, so I won't be able to tend to it for some time. I'll keep an eye out on it though. Thanks! And congratulations on your GA mate!!! --Eddyspeeder (talk) 13:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey buddy, long time no see. Did you manage to get some time to fix the sample?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Queensrÿche may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | genre = [Heavy metal music|Heavy metal]], [[progressive metal]], [[hard rock]], [[power metal]] (early)
• 14}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|author=bravewords.com |url=http://www.bravewords.com/news/150895 |title=> News > QUEENSRŸCHE's Geoff Tate - Building His Empires |publisher=Bravewords.com |date= |accessdate=2011-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on the Queensrÿche talk page.

Someone has opened up a discussion here that I feel has been a long time coming, personally. I'd be thrilled if you could give us your input. Cheers! Friginator (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I have to apologize. I actually wasn't aware you were ever part of Anybodylistening before. I didn't mean that to seem like outing or anything (which isn't allowed on Wikipedia), so I apologize if that's how it came off. I also didn't mean to construe your edits in a biased or non-constructive light. Thanks for commenting. Friginator (talk) 20:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I thank you for this comment. I was concerned it was indeed directed at me as you spoke of users, rather than IPs. To my knowledge, "Queensryche2" and I are the only users editing Queensrÿche-related pages, where "Queensryche2" is mainly focused on sometimes contributing his photos rather than doing textual edits. I did see several IPs whose edits clearly coincided with discussions on AnybodyListening.net, and well-founded or not, I have often undone those edits and even called on the forum one time to keep things calm. I found that a great benefit of being both here and there.

Apology accepted, and sorry I misunderstood your intentions. As for the way forward, I would propose we look at how to (re)structure the 2012–2014 period as I do see there is a need to approach that structurally and discuss it. Do you have ideas on how to make it more clear? I still would hope for a bit more input from people who, for example, have a good band photo of Tate's band, so we could give that more of a "face". --Eddyspeeder (talk) 07:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Discordia

Hey buddy,

I just put up an article for "Discordia", that song Todd La Torre put out with Glen Drover. As I was working on it, I thought about mentioning the fact that Drover was briefly involved in Geoff Tate's version of Queensryche but then I figured that's been covered enough on here. Anyway, I'd be thrilled if you took a look at this when you have a moment. Feel free to make any changes that you think would improve the article. Thanks! Shaneymike (talk) 03:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Eddyspeeder! Thanks for adding the part about Drover performing alongside Todd and the rest of the Queensryche. I'll agree that warranted a mention. Yeah, if you can add audio sample some time, that would be great. Thanks again for the add. Shaneymike (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Found something for you

Hey came across something on Blabbermouth that you might want to put in your draft for Queensryche's next album... "Arrow of Time" --L1A1 FAL (talk) 15:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Eddyspeeder. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

diagonal method

Hi, Thanks for your message and as i saw you're not my page whacher so may you can't see my answer, i answer you here, my native language is not english and my problem is that i can read, hear and undrestand english but when i want to speak i can't do it correctly. i'll be thankful if you correct my description problems, i put 4 image in one gallery to community see 4 of then then choose the best ! my another reason for put 4 image is that this procces make sense for new photographers because too many of them in real life askm me about this: how a line like diagonal come from top left corner but don't cross from bottom right corne, with this gallery want to show all possiable ways for composiotion image by using diagonal method technique. for professional photographers one image(in grallery form left to right the second) is enough but i think for new photographers and common people all them is necessary. as i before said i'll be thanksfull to correct my description.

Update: After i left this message i thought and you're right about number 4 picture for readers, number 4 is the cropped version of the original (number 1) and just a bridge for comming from number 1 to 2 and 3, it should be removed, as you said and i did it i upload 1 picture that i think is sutiable,(below image), i edited article and i think you should correct my description!

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diagonal_method_portrait.jpg

Aswaran (talk) 13:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Eddyspeeder. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Queensryche - Open.ogg

Thank you for uploading File:Queensryche - Open.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Eddyspeeder. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)