User talk:Fezmar9/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Thanks!

I'm still learning the interface of Wikipedia, it's a pretty steep curve. Thank you for your suggestions regarding my recent article. I decided that it would be useful to lay the foundation for future information to be added later. I will certainly finish the article when more information (bands) is announced. TheBlackening 00:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackening (talk • contribs)

Escape The Fate - Massacre

Please check Massacre's talk page.--Raktoner (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Interested??

I just thought you might be interested in creating a discussion about the alternate cover posted at Teenage Dream (Katy Perry album). It's too similar and it's kinda like the discussion that occurred with A Thousand Suns. Ga Be 19 03:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not like I float around Wikipedia looking for album articles with multiple covers that are too similar. I can show you the steps to go about doing this yourself if that would interest you. After reviewing the article history, it looks like there is some argument as to which cover should be used over the other, which I do not wish to enter. The argument started on the talk page, but edit wars continue in the upload log. It also looks like the second image File:Katy Perry Teenage Dream alternate cover.jpg was improperly uploaded as a poster, not an album cover. Perhaps no one will update the copyright tags and it will be deleted anyways. Fezmar9 (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Eros

Great job on the rewrite. Seegoon (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for noticing :) Fezmar9 (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Track Listing and WikiProjects

Is there any real organization with the Wikiproject Albums project? I'd like to get involved with programming/organization/making everything consistent and pretty (isn't that the point?), but I don't ever get a sense of true organization on Wikipedia, just people that like to fix things. In regards to the Track Listing template use, I feel that it's something that would allow for a more consistent look to all album pages. On the same lines as the above paragraph, how does one get to help out on the "fixing" of the Track Listing template? Thanks. Rlholden (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There's some truth in what you're saying to some extent. The policies that govern Wikipedia are decided by community-based consensus and discussions, and as such, can change or develop over time. All pages, including documentations for templates and and guidelines, have corresponding talk pages where editors discuss possible changes. So if you have any ideas for a specific area I strongly urge you to voice your opinions on said talk pages! If you're unsure of how to navigate to a talk page, just click the "Discussion" tab at the top left of every page. As far as any actual programming, to the extent of my knowledge, that's all handled by administrators and you have to make suggestions for updates on talk pages. These suggestions are discussed, and if there's enough support, the admin will make the necessary changes. Very few actions on Wikipedia are actually performed by a single person.

You ask if Wikiproject Albums has any real organization, and in my honest opinion, it really doesn't. It tries though. Wikipedia is entirely a volunteer-based system, and thus the incentives are either self-serving or non-existent. This results in a small percentage of editors that become regulars and an even smaller percentage of editors that are willing to contribute to a project. And for whatever reason, the album project is considerably weaker in comparison to projects of other forms of media such as: Wikiproject Film, Wikiproject Video Games and Wikiproject Books. As you can see (providing you clicked the links) these other projects are far cleaner, more organized and contain much more information comparatively. To contribute to the track listing template, clicking on the discussion tab takes you to Template talk:Track listing, where you can click the "New section" tab to, well, start a new section. You may also want to flip through the archives to see if your question has already been answered too.

Anyways, yea, please feel free to voice your opinions on any and all talk pages! And don't forget to add the articles that you comment on to your watchlist so you don't have to keep coming back to see if someone replied! Fezmar9 (talk) 01:34, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 06:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Flatfoot 56 review in AP

Can you please email me the scan of the Black Thorn review? I can not find it on their website and I do not have that issue. You can email me through this. (Sorry I am a bit wary about posting my email on the open interent) cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 16:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Alternative Press used to post their published reviews online a few months after they appeared in the magazine. After they redesigned their website, they don't seem to have much of a pattern with what gets posted on their website. Unfortunately, I am out of town for the holidays and will not be able to scan a copy of that review until early next month. Also, Wikipedia's email system does not allow file attachments, so I have to send it directly to a personal email account. Some of the users that requested scans on my subpage also requested that I remove their email address from the talk page, and they seemed content with that. I do understand your concerns though. No one wants their identity exposed online. Do you maybe have an older email address that you don't use anymore? Fezmar9 (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The fact that it will not come until Early-Mid January does not really bother me. We are all busy this time of year so that is to be expected. This is an older email: REDACTED Can you please remove it from public view after your done? cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:17, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry this took forever, I completely forgot you requested this. I just sent it out a minute ago! Fezmar9 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you very much for your help. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 23:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

TBK

Friginator put the singles back up the instant you took them down. Then, he definitely 3RR'd, while I stopped before I did. FYI. Sergecross73 msg me 20:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Fantastic. Just know that if I submit an notice board complaint about this, and you too have reverted three times, then you will also be blocked. Fezmar9 (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I stopped at 2 and will stay there. If he changes it back, I know there's no reason to change it anymore as he'll just have dug himself even deeper of a hole. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Inception - Score.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Inception - Score.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 03:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hi. I see you recently split a good deal of content from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums to Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, article or project page, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributors. When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Other than copying material from my sandboxes, I don't recall ever copying and pasting material on Wikipedia prior to this event. I can see where this would be an issue, and I'll keep it in mind for the future. In this case specifically, would you recommend placing a note on Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body that some of the material was copied from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I already took care of it. :) It's not placed on the body, but in edit summary and at talk page. See my edit summary here and the talk page template here. That's {{copied}}, and it's good whether you're copying from one article to another or from a project page. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar award

		The WikiProject Albums Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for your great work on the expanson of the article content guidelines for the WP:ALBUM project, including the extraction from the main project page into a separate subpage. – IbLeo(talk) 21:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Past and Future Ruins.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Past and Future Ruins.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Courcelles 04:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

ADEMA

Dave's arrest is not affecting their tour. I am good friends with them, they are still pushing forward. Let the band handle this, they know what they are doing. The only thing Dave needs is support right now. Please respect his privacy.--98.221.33.212 (talk) 05:56, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Deftones Confusion and trying to broaden musical horizons

Sorry about the confusion. I wasn't trying to post any kind of biased, since the Deftones have a drony, shoegaze type quality to their music. If i'm the only one who thinks that this is true, i'll stay out of it. I just try to show how many possible genres a song has to itself, and my biggest research method is just listening to the song. User:Coolbutlame —Preceding undated comment added 15:51, 3 February 2011 (UTC).

Orphaned non-free image File:Escapethefate-thiswarisours.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Escapethefate-thiswarisours.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey man! check out my vid!

Hey Fezmar! so i was wondering what u thought of my playing, check it out! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLuOny6l1-A. Its a cover of a metric song, but i made it metal! lol. let me know what u think man. Ant_smusher (talk)

Pretty sick! I've been wanting to learn to play the guitar for ages now... Fezmar9 (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks man! you really should man, its fun as fuck once u've gotten past a certain point (1-2.5 years usually). Plus if u get big enough we already know how to run our own wikipages hahaha (Ant_smusher (talk))

Review Box Fix

Thanks for cleaning up after me, didn't realize I was breaking the box until you pointed it out. Cheers, The Interior (Talk) 01:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I actually never knew the review box would prevent entries from displaying if they weren't in a perfect numerical order. But it was a simple fix once I noticed the Rock Sound review was missing. No harm done! Fezmar9 (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Magazine scans

Hi guy.

Seems like we move in similar editing circles, so I was browsing your shit and saw that you had a selection of scans available. I've been working (on and off) on quite a lot of Isis-centric articles on here, and would love to give it that little bit of spit and polish needed. To that end, it would be awesome if you could provide me with the Isis content you have available – I see Decibel #71 and #73 have some content, respectively. I'm actually kinda surprised that there isn't more Isis stuff, given their gravity within those publications. Regardless, please let me know whether you might be able to oblige. Cheers, Seegoon (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yea man absolutely! The article from issue #71 is dubbed as "the final Isis interview" and was conducted with Aaron Turner shortly before he went on stage for his final performance with Isis. It largely has to do with the group's break up, but also discusses two future releases. The article in issue #73 is a review of the split 12" with Melvins. Unfortunately, the email link on your user page doesn't allow file attachment, so I've been asking users for their email addresses here. But it just occurred to me that you could probably hit the "e-mail this user" button, and I could reply to that message with the attachment. It's linked to my old email that I rarely check, so just let me know if/when you shoot me a message and I'll get those scans out to ya! Fezmar9 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ace mate. #71 sounds like a potential treasure trove, and #73 can't hurt. I've just changed my account settings to allow emails (never really had cause to fiddle with that before) so it should work if you try it again. The other thing I'm looking for is 2009's top 40 list, also from Decibel; not for scans, but just so I can give a chart position a primary reference. Do you have a copy of that? Also, you rule. Seegoon (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

YOU FREAKIN' RULE. Thanks a million; I would never have otherwise been able to get my hand on some of that goodness. If a gold star should grace any of those articles you've aided in the future, a spoke of it will be dedicated to you. Seegoon (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice you also requested info about the best of 2009 albums list. Isis' Wavering Radiant ranked at #10 of 40 in Issue 63 (January 2010) on page 62. I'm not sure who you'd like to list as the author though. Catherine Yates wrote Isis' blurb next to their rank, but Andrew Bonazelli wrote the intro to the top 40 list. It's not clear if this suggests that this is Bonazelli's piece and other people wrote the different parts, or if Bonazelli only wrote the intro paragraph. Sorry this was late! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

First-party sources for new In Flames album

I'm curious what's wrong with using first-party sources (see here). I would think, at least for something like an album release date and track listing, which isn't an opinion, that the original source would be preferred. Sites like Blabbermouth get their information directly from the record companies, so citing Blabbermouth instead of the original source seems unnecessary. I would also think that more sources are better, in case one source disappears — multiple sources provide accuracy far better than only one. Surat123 (talk) 10:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Dreamsofstabbingandorbeingstabbed.jpg

Please don't tag files for deletion if an album has this as its source "The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label". This is the standard valid souce information if you are uploading album covers. cheers--Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:24, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

But this album was not actually released through a label, that's just what automatically fills in when the source field is left blank. So the cover art cannot be obtained from the record label. It's a false claim. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

The default mush have changed For the ones I have uploaded it said something to the effect of "The cover art can or could be obtained from the record label or the band" cheers --Guerillero | My Talk | Review Me 03:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

KEN mode

Have you beheld KEN mode? If not, take a look at its 2011 album Venerable; it was released through the ever reliable Profound Lore Records.--Cannibaloki 21:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I really enjoy this!!! I'm shocked I've never heard of them, because I usually know everything that Kurt Ballou produces. Thanks for the tip! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

What about we improve the album's article? [off-topic] Have you a RYM account?--Malconfort (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure how much help I could be. As you can see, this is the first time I've ever heard of this group before. However, I don't know if you've seen my magazine scan subpage, but it looks like I could provide you with a short but recent Decibel magazine article about KEN Mode that might contain details about Venerable. Also, I don't believe I have a RYM account. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can work in a similar manner as was done on Axe to Fall. Keep on listening Venerable and you'll quickly become familiar with KEN mode's music. Okay, send to me the magazine scan. Why you don't create a RYM account?--Malconfort (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Botch-Unifying Themes of Sex.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Botch-Unifying Themes of Sex.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reverted content in Norma Jean - O God, the Aftermath

I tried not to take it personal when I saw you came right behind me and reverted several hours of my time spent adding information to this article... and I can reach an agreement with you about the addition of the Extra Notes section, and how that could be considered "fancruft". So I lost a couple of hours by misjudging what content is welcomed and what content is considered to be mostly uninteresting to the majority of users. Ok... so now that I have (as much as I hate wasting my time) agreed with you about the first edit, which added that section, I have to disagree with you on the 2nd edit, made to the main/top entry. You used some pretty strong terms, and you made sure to include all possibilities of why my content was trash.

To quote the reason directly "(revert; this new information is unverified, trivial fancruft written in a non-encyclopedic tone and littered with original research)". Sting.

Most specifically Revision as of 14:58, 7 April 2011. This information I will ask you to reconsider, in relation to the second edit/addition, leaving the first out. My reasons for contesting the revert are that 1) it is verifiable 2) I do not consider information about extra tracks or major packaging differences, etc between two versions of an album to be "trivial", much less "fancruft" (if mine is considered to be merely fancruft, then I could argue the point that much of the information that you decided to retain is no less "trivial fancruft" than my additions). I went to add extra information as to WHY the bonus track diverted from the rest of the album's "rules" -- to explain why the track ShaunLuu was a "special track", as I was watching the DVD and they explained that the track was named after/in memory of a good friend of theirs who died of cancer. Fancruft? That depends who you ask, but I feel that is pertinent information. When you consider that most viewers visit a page because they are interested in the (band, for instance) and would like to know more detail and facts pertaining to them.

If everything on Wikipedia was kept strictly to staunch, rote and "basic facts and information only" (as was the intent), we'd have extremely short pages with little information. These are pages that I think to myself, "Wow... this is boring and the same basic information that can be found on 10,000 other sites, and makes this article disappointing and uninteresting", wishing the editors had spent a bit more time including more intimate or personal information about a subject. I understand this is site is ideally emulative of an Encyclopedia... facts, spit the information out and get going... but it's also the addendum; the extra information that I did not know that really makes me enjoy this site -- as probably my favorite site on the Internet. I intentionally look up bands and albums for that specific purpose of hopefully gaining some little extra bits of detail (like what I provided). I love information, and skimping and getting into grey, subjective areas like what and what isn't "fancruft", "trivial" -- "non-encyclopedic tone" (Who is to say? I tried my best to make the material proper and professional sounding. Not everyone is an English/Literature major, I did the best I could. It was hardly written "casually" or with total ignorance to grammar). I am merely trying to contribute extra information that I may be privy to, which the average listener or mediocre fan of the band may not know, but would like to. As said, if you need more references to these statements, I'll be glad to add further sources to prove that what I posted was factual information. Whether it's trivial or fancruft material is going to be contingent on individual users. IMO, if the information is more than they would like to know, the reader has the option to skip past it -- but the person who would have loved to have learned the information that "may have been" will never have the chance or choice... and I thought this was about learning new things. The love of knowledge and the craving to expand that knowledge as far as possible is what drives me to this site most days -- I can get a track list anywhere. I come to Wikipedia to get that extra information that you obviously deem as completely superfluous and of no value to the readers.

I know that's a mouthful, but I decided rather than get angry about me spending 2+ hours gathering and formatting information into what I considered "proper form" and information that I considered to be pertinent, valuable and interesting material vs. your opinion of it being irrelevant, inapplicable and trite; rather than just go off on you as I wanted to at first sight, this is the "right thing".

So, with my attempt at a defense and a counter-point paired with a possible compromise for you to consider... I ask that you please do so when it's convenient to you and please reconsider your nearly insulting rejection of my factual, verifiable, pertinent information in the second revision by me. As mentioned at the start, I can compromise by accepting the suggestion that the information about the hidden track may be viewed as superfluous, extraneous information; and agree to leave that out and call it my loss.

Rather than be stupid and just revert it back to mine, I decided to take the higher, encouraged/enforced approach to dealing with my disagreement and refer back to you on specifics in regards to: 1) why you feel, or more importantly, why the reading audience as a majority would feel the same way about the information that I provided in the first section 2) if you can see any merit in salvaging it, what problem(s) do you find with the additional information, and what do you feel that I could do to resolve your complaints? I understand there are rules, but there are always subjective opinions in rules like that... on what any single individual finds either very valuable information, or finds it to be inane and out of place.

Please let me know what resolution/agreement we can reach on the information in that edit, if any. If you're truly insistent that my (altruistic) contribution to the existing information is worthless, yet... then I suppose I will just call it all a loss -- and feel that any future contributions by myself would be a waste of not only my time, but those who come behind me to get rid of it; but nothing makes you want to stop contributing to a community effort like immediate deletion/removal of content that I spent hours of my time preparing and entering -- content that I didn't have to take my free time to add in the first place. Maybe I shouldn't in the future. Obviously the rules are not so clearly defined to me that I am truly grasping an objective concept from a subjective viewpoint. This website, by its very nature as a "peer contributed/maintained" wiki site allows for a bit more flexibility in what ultimately makes it "to press". Wikipedia may emulate or attempt to mimic an official Internet-based encyclopedia, but when the content itself is created and maintained by its own user base, you will see it reach an equilibrium between its fundamental intent/purpose -- and what the users/contributors of the site would ideally like to see it. Therefore, IMO, it becomes a reliable resource by the ToS/rules such as demands of references, citing info, etc to help facilitate the public's opinion of it as a trustworthy resource by ensuring that only factual and verifiable content is published, with additional checks and balances by peer editors to ensure that these measures are being taken, ultimately resulting in a sound, verifiable and consistent source of community created content. Just like you exercised that power to reject my information.

I'll cut it off there, I'm sorry for going on and on; I tried to keep it respectful and proper, regardless of my frustration and irritation towards the action.

As I understand, by interpretation of you and cited policy, "no information" is better than "information that could possibly be contrived as excessively detailed" by some users. That goes against my idea on the subject, which is that any information (as long as it is truthful and correct information, and not tastelessly excessive) has merit, and it should be left to the reader to decide whether they care to read/absorb that additional information or not. I'm gonna rest my case and lay it in your hands. Sorry, I'm babbling because I'm nearly dozing off while typing this. It's past time for bed, and I know to continue further would just be rehashed points on my behalf. Hope that I hear from you with a little extra detail which led to you forming the opinion that you did. Thanks for your time. Apologies again, for the length.

Bedtime, now. I have got one insane migraine-level headache, plus considering that I'm so tired, I have no idea why I have been typing so long instead of getting in bed to rest. I think it's just that I'm running off of fumes right now... my semi-conscious mind and body continue to carry on the task at hand, while the part that says "shut up and get in bed" *has* already done so. ;)

Wow... yeah. That's insane. I just previewed the post. Eff me... Sorry about that! I must have spaced out and the brain kept operating at a troll level. Just kidding. While I was way too verbose and should have reached a stopping point far earlier, at least I was not rude or disrespectful to you and kept things at an adult level (or so I feel) ----- I guess... See I'm doing it again. The brain just tries to keep going when the body has checked out. NO! Bedtime#@#! NO! signing off. Post it! Post!@! Gotta go while I have the chance. Our sanity is at risk at this point... both of ours. Bye bye...

ChinchX (talk) 05:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

And the award for the longest Wikipedia talk page comment goes to...

Wow, I'm not really sure where to begin. I guess I should start by first thanking you for starting a discussion about this instead of engaging in a lengthy and counterproductive editwar. I'll run you through my thought process leading up to my revert edit: I saw a lot of new information that didn't seem to comply with various Wikipedia guidelines and policies. I started sifting through pages and pages of clean-up/maintenance tags (such as this one) for something that best summarized my concerns with the new material. Because I thought it would look horrendous to add 5+ tags in the lead to express my concerns, and because a lot of the material seemed so against what Wikipedia is looking for, I decided it might be best to remove it all together. Obviously I'm only given so much room in my edit summary, so my explanation had to be an impersonal brief statement. The links were meant to be the explanation of my rationale. So I say these edits are original research, you read this claim and then also read what that links to to get a the full explanation of what I was talking about. Does that make sense? It wasn't meant to be rude or anything.

I absolutely commend your desire to want to contribute, but the polices and guidelines are here for a reason. I know they can be a huge slap in the face at first. Anyone that's been an editor for a while will have a horror story of something they first contributed that was deleted or reverted. (A humorous essay that somewhat accurately describes how new editors adjust and learn how to contribute can be read at The Seven Ages of Wikipedians.) No one expects new editors to inherently know all of the guidelines from the moment the new account is created, and there isn't any sort of training process. They're mostly learned through trial and error.

So, where we go from here is really up to you. I think the article O God, the Aftermath is in sad shape and could use some repairs. I'd be happy to help you work on it and steer you in the right direction. I could break down your previous contributions sentence for sentence and show you where I feel your edits were against the guidelines if you want. The biggest problem I saw was that you were contributing a little backwards. You were making claims, and then hoping to cite a reference. Saying that something is verifiable doesn't make it so, citing a source does. You should really first be doing research, then finding verifiable information from reputable sources, then making your contributions. I think the most commonly quoted sentence from any guideline would be from Wikipedia's policy on verification: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." And unfortunately this album wasn't really popular and didn't really receive much press coverage, so I doubt there's much out there to be found. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Kurt Ballou discography

I think I will create this list. What do you think?--Malconfort (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean with both his production credits and composing credits? Also, is this Cannibaloki under a different name? Fezmar9 (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes to all. This is Internet's unpaid prostitution viewed from a new perspective with its meticulously calculated efforts.--Malconfort (talk) 23:18, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Well that certainly puts our above conversation into an entirely different context. I thought Malconfort was some random user joining in on the discussion. Ha! I'd say go for it with Kurt Ballou discography, and I'll see what I can dig up on Venerable. I doubt it will turn out to be another Axe to Fall, that was somewhat of a happy accident. Are you still at the same e-mail address? Fezmar9 (talk) 17:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Of course. No I changed my user name. Okay, I will go ahead then. So a new happy accident will occurs? Yes.--Malconfort (talk) 00:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:TracklistingTemplateFail.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:TracklistingTemplateFail.png. 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero

Category:Albums with artwork by Sons of Nero, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 19:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Whitelist link

What is the link to where the Examiner article was whitelisted and why wouldn't you put a hidden note in the article about it? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Examiner article was whitelisted here, and I guess I never thought of adding a hidden note. Fezmar9 (talk) 04:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Parting the Sea Between Brightness and Me

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Parting the Sea Between Brightness and Me, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.redefinemag.com/music/blogs_news.php?pageNumber=5.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Your input would be appreciated

Hey. Off the back of much of what you provided by way of magazine scans, I've gone and nominated Wavering Radiant for GAC. I'd really appreciate it if you could cast your keen eye across it and point out any issues which might provide a stumbling block throughout that process. Cheers. Seegoon (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• The first thing I notice is that the label field in the infobox is inconsistent with what Template:Infobox album#Label is looking for. It should only list Ipecac Recordings, and it should simply be listed as Ipecac with the word Recordings removed.
• If the other labels released the album on a different date, perhaps you might want to also consider a release history table.
• The dash in the recording section of the infobox is currently an em dash when it should be an en dash surrounded by spaces. See MOS:DASH.
• I notice a few issues with words to watch:
  • In the lead you say, "...continues Isis' legacy of lengthy songwriting..." This seems like an overly-grand peacock term to me. Why not 'history' or 'tradition'?
  • At the end of the music section you say, "...shifts in mood here, most interestingly when they take influence from..." This is a textbook case of editorializing. Actually, I didn't see this was from a quote. I was just popping random "words to watch" into the search box.
• It looks like you wrote some of this in a Word document and then copied it into Wikipedia, yes? That's usually the most common way for articles to have typographic quotation marks. See #Quotation marks.

These are all pretty minor issues. Overall I think it's a very well written and well sourced article! Fezmar9 (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this! Just the kind of stuff I was looking for; I've amended accordingly. It's number 63 on the GAC queue, so at this rate might get reviewed in time for the tenth anniversary of its release. Cheers! Seegoon (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Fezmar9. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Sanders.
Message added 15:35, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6