User talk:Leyasu/Archive 1

RE: Alternative Metal

I think you got the wrong person. If you look at the edit history of Alternative Metal, you will see that I do not appear in it. I think the user you want is AJ Ramirez (talk · contribs). The only association I have with that user is that I weclomed him back in September. Please make sure you get the right person next time, you got me worried! All the best, Fir e Fox 09:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is perfectly fine, no harm done. Kind regards, Fir e Fox 17:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative metal

I appreciate your thoughts, and I do want to approach this subject with the most civility. Curiously, I really don't have a vested interest in the subject; it's more that so many people were debating the topic and not doing anything about it I've had to force myself into the position of implementing change (plus the grammar was generally atrocious and some sections were just pasted word for word from websites or other articles). I've had to do similar edits for Noise pop and College rock. I'm going to move to editing Nu metal in a day or two in order to clarify the difference between the two (although there is a case for a huge overlap between the two terms, since stores and music sites (including mp3.com, among others) where I've found "Alternative metal" in usage list a number (but not all) of nu-metal bands; "nu-metal" is genetrally used in the press and genre discussion for post Korn/Limp Bizkit alternative metal bands that are thoroughly mainstream, soemtimes as dinstinction and other times derisively). The thing is if anyone else has thoughts on the subject besides the two of us, they haven't really been sharing them recently (especially on the topic of a merge). I'd really like them to contribute to the discussion. Right now all I'm seeing is us going back and forth, and that certainly is not helping. WesleyDodds 15:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More a request for greater discussion, but that involves other people getting involved, which we can't necessarily force others to do. I know what you think, and you know what I think, but for the past week or so there has been no discussion from anyone else.

Something else that should be considered is that Alternative metal survived the vote for deletion; twice, I might add. A merger would be akin to deleting it, since the page would no longer exist and any searches would under a merger redirect to Nu metal. You did propose the idea of a merge during the vote, but no one else did, and no one else concurred. Right now we need to have greater discussion on the topic of a merge before anything so drastic is undertaken. WesleyDodds 16:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've found sources that distinguish between nu metal and alternative metal, specifically that nu metal is the direct descendant of Korn and the Deftones rather than all so-called alternative metal bands. The important point is that both terms are used quite often; however, as our discussion have established, neither of them are used with exact accuracy and consistency as, say, something like Shoegazing or grindcore is to describe a particular distinct style. I have a couple of things to incorporate from my searches here and there, but due to personal obligations I've only slept like five hours today, so after a loooong rest I'll work on incorporating more links and sources in the articles. My first priority will be writing a proper history of nu-metal because, really, right now there's 3 sections or so detailing the trends that led up to nu-metal (alt metal, grunge, and post-grunge) without actually dealing with the subject at hand. Those will be merged together and followed up in detail. Once that's done, I'll work on the grammar, espeically rewriting sentences in both articles in order to make them both internally consistent (obviously a problem when working on something like Wikipedia where people add bits piecemeal). Hopefully by the time I'm done with that (or in the best scenario, before I'm done) there will be more contributions from others on both pages. That's my main concern right now, that no matter how this entire discussion turns out, once all is said and done someone chimes in to say "Wait a minute!" when it would have been more productive for everyone if voices had been raised and work done by others at this moment. WesleyDodds 02:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic / Doom metal band list thingy

Hi, fella. It might be worth dropping a comment onto the Talk page of the guy who separated that list off into a separate article. Chances are he won't spot the comments you made on his edit and you could end up reverting each other's changes ad-infinitum :) IainP (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Within Temptation category

I removed the category Category:Symphonic metal from the article Within Temptation, since I saw no use for it. Though I will agree that symphonic metal describes their style better than gothic metal, the category for symphonic metal simply doesn't exist.. and the only band listed there is WT. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:21, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess it's fine then. Good luck with your cat sorting, and merry christmas. -- SoothingR^(pour) 12:41, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwish

Why did you remove the references? They may make the article look a little out of order, but they're a necessary evil. I'm trying to get this article through FA in a few days, and as you can read here, if there aren't any inline citations there is a big chance that Nightwish will not make it to featured article-status. -- SoothingR^(pour) 09:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE

I think you have misunderstood the point of WP:V and WP:CITE. Yes, people have said it and yes, it's therefore a fact. However, Wikipedia policy tells us that information in articles have to be sourced. There inline references just make it clearer to see what comes from where. It's just so the provided info is easier to verify for others. Please stop removing them. Soothing R 12:23, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, that's just there to make clear where those quotes and little pieces of information came from.

Soothing R 12:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do use the Notes-section, but I use those inline refs to point to that note section. So it is clear what note belongs to what part of the article. It's not all that strange. Many featured articles do that.

Soothing R 14:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a matter of taste. Personally, I don't mind them. I wouldn't be able to think of a better way to implement the policy on verifiability. This is WP:CITE in optima forma.

Soothing R 14:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Leyasu. I have been watching this discussion unfold, and since you are both so close to violating WP:3RR, I feel its time for me to interfere. SoothingR is fairly correct in this issue, despite the fact that you are too, to some degree. But the fact remains that inline citations have become somewhat of a standard when it comes to citing soruces for quotes or very specific facts, and those will certainly contribute for the article to reach Featured status. So if would please just let go and accept that they are needed, all would benefit. They break the flow of the sentence somewhat, true, but they should be there if the article is to pass the WP:FAC proccess. Regards, --Sn0wflake 18:54, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gothic-doom

Gothic metal and gothic-doom are the very same thing. What you call "gothic-doom" is simply the evolution of the genre. It's the same thing as creating a new genre for more recent heavy metal bands simply because they don't play in the exact same way Sabbath did. A genre will always be a genre. What is your main claim for classifying bands as gothic-doom? Abscence of vocals on opposing ranges? --Sn0wflake 00:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to push this issue forward, as the difference between the definitions seems to not be worth discussing over, but I will have to ask three things of you, however. First, make the inwikis correct in order not to confuse people, in this manner: gothic metal#Gothic doom, followed by "|gothic-doom metal", this will take the reades to that specific subsection of the gothic metal article. Second, if you are going to insist on changing categories also, you will have to create a category for Gothic-doom, that's non-negotiable. Don't forget that the second word on the genre is always in lower case. Also aknowledge that not all editors may agree with you, and the fact that I don't think the issue is worth discussing over does not by any means make this consensus. As such, my third request is that you provide sources for your claims on gothic metal. I hereby remove myself from this discussion unless my input is needed. What I am asking of you is merely from an admin standpoint. --Sn0wflake 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nightwish

While we are at it, what is the problem with the Nightwish article? --Sn0wflake 01:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What edit did I censor in Nightwish? If I did, it was certainly by mistake. I sincerely can't remember any instance of that. If you could please point out specific edits, and I mean specific edits, so that I can understand what you are talking about, I will be more than glad to review them. --Sn0wflake 01:59, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute with LGagnon

I have contacted the editor, and will keep an eye on the Talk page to mediate further discussions. However, I will have to ask of you to be more delicate in your words and assumptions. Often, when you speak, you seem to be making attacks, even if in truth you are not. Please, add reference on the article to back up your claims. Always. Opposing editors cannot argue against a reliable source. You may contact me in case the editor makes another threat, that behavior is not allowed according to the rules of the Wikipedia. Keep your cool, above all. --Sn0wflake 01:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

Seeing that is unlikely that any of you will voluntarily come to terms, I will do what I feel is fair for both parties. From now on, you both have a clean record. Please, please try to forget your old issues. However, from this point on, whenever one of you makes a personal attack, I will enforce a 6-hour block. If you can discuss amicably, best for everyone, but if you cannot, at least you will think twice before saying something offensive to one another.

I know it's hard to overcome this sort of dispute, but I have done so a couple of times in the past. My suggestion is that first you both stay away from the article for at least a day, then, when you return to discussion, try to not step on toes. Give suggestions instead of enforcing ideas, do not discuss much, instead, produce reliable sources. If you act in this manner, all will work out. --Sn0wflake 04:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The only way of restricting an user from a specific article (or your User page) is by means of WP:RfAr, which is a very serious proccess, and which I do not reccomend for such a small discussion.

Nightwish, again

Leyasu, first, if you have concerns over the complexity of the language on the article, you should understand that this is an attempt at an English encyclopedia, and as such does not need to have a simplistic and straightforward language, on the contrary, it is expected to have what we call brilliant prose. For simple language, we have the simple English Wikipedia at http://simple.wikipedia.org. Issue number two, I do not see as significant, you can surely live with that. As for three, it is our duty to show all significant POVs. I did understand that you work with music, but then again, so do I. That does not necessarily means your POV should prevail, even if you know you are right! The Wikipedia is a place for all POVs to be considered, and at times there are no clear answers to questions, even if you think you have them. I mantain that I do not consider your complaints relevant on the greater scheme of things, please try to see the bigger picture. The article still needs certain improvements, but you might be missing the point. --Sn0wflake 04:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Wikipedia:Personal attacks.

I didn't say you made a personal attack. I said that if you make one, you will be temporarily blocked; the same is valid for Gagnon. Your comment about ignoring him was not very nice, and borders on that, but is by no means a blockable offence, it's just absolutely not helping. In case you are wondering, his POV is the one which will stand in case you do not provide any evidence to back that he is wrong, or at least that you are right. --Sn0wflake 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasu, I have already asked it a couple thousand times, but again: please compile the sources which prove your point and post them on my new thread at the Talk page. --Sn0wflake 07:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 12 hours for violating 3RR on Grunge music

You are invited to edit again once the block has expired. The evidence is here. The 3 revert rule is extremely important and should not be violated under any circumstances. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 08:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Leyasu, you did make a personal attack, by insulting LGagnon, so I have blocked you for 6 hours. Please do not repeat this, do not insult him, this does not help. --Sn0wflake 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nu Metal

I noticed that you reverted the Nu metal article, removing what you claimed to be vandalism. I fail to see what exactly is "vandalism" in the orignal page. The entire entry that you deleted was truth. While I can see how you may have considered genre-bashing, I can assure you that it was all true. Instead of reverting the article, it would've likely been better to have re-worded what was said, as it did come off as slightly biased, regardless of how true it was. -D14BL0 17:48, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On personal attacks

See Leyasu, around here we do not call people "meglomanical". We might think that, we might be sure of that, we might have enough expertise to be able to assert that by the way a person writes... but we don't call them meglomanical. Neither we give any other adjective with negative conotations to them. Just refer to him as "editor LGagon" or something like that and avoid commenting on his behavior, but rather focus on his contributions. --Sn0wflake 19:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting tired of having my actions questioned by both of you. You don't get a body of admins to surpervise your minor conflict, rather, you get whoever volunteers, in that case, me. There are so many other ways you can say he is not acting reasonably without making it sound like an insult! In the first place, you shouldn't even be calling him anything, as I have already said, you should focus on his contributions, not on his person. --Sn0wflake 01:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will kindly remind you that you were the one who invited me to mediate this dispute, not the other way around. If you think that I am victimizing you even after everything I have done to help the resolution of this dispute, then by all means, file a complaint against me in order to attempt removal of my sysop rights. The one at fault, in reality, is me, as no other admin would have gone to the lengths I have to solve this petty dispute. I have no obligation of doing this, so I would suggest that you stopped complaining and moved on with the dispute resolution. If you send another complaint with no basis, I'm out of this mediation proccess. I clearly stated that you both had a clear record from that point on and any personal attack any of you made, would result in a six hour block. You implied that he had behavioral issues. You got blocked. That's it. --Sn0wflake 02:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It falls both under the bullet Accusatory comments such as "Bob is a troll", or "Jane is a bad editor" can be considered personal attacks if said repeatedly, in bad faith, or with sufficient venom. and on the bullet Negative personal comments and "I'm better than you" attacks, such as "You have no life." . As promised, this is the last complaint I'll answer. I await for your version of the article. --Sn0wflake 03:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grunge

OK. I will wait for the other editor's view and negotiate the removal of the template with him, meanwhile, please avoid interaction with him. --Sn0wflake 03:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion of the dispute resolution is as follows: the template will be removed, and the category stays. Assertions that grunge is similiar to hardcore punk may be made as long as it is made explicit that there is no consensus on that. Leyasu and LGagnon are encouraged to avoid interaction in the future, and in case that is made necessary, it is advised that unless it is a trivial matter, they ask for an admin to proxy the discussion. The article will be unprotected ASAP and admin Sn0wflake makes a request that both editors stay away from the article for at least a few days, only reverting the occasional vandalism if it is necessary. Regards, --Sn0wflake 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, things seem to be stable now... drop by the Talk page in case you have anything to add to the new definition paragraph, but please do not talk directly to LGagnon OR edit the article just yet. Just add anything you might want in the paragraph in a follow-up post and I think we are done with this dispute. --Sn0wflake 04:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Sorry, but you're on your own this time. See my User page for more information. I'm sure somebody else will be able to help out. Best, --Sn0wflake 04:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Is Your Problem?

According to you, anything that isn't your edit is POV, Vandalism, or Harrassment - obviously not the case. And continuously no source/explanation to back up these claims, either way. Judging from the posts from others above, this matter between you and I (related to the Gothic Metal, Symphonic metal and Dark metal articles) is definitely not an isolated incident. --Danteferno 02:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leyasu - anybody who doesn't agree with your edits you call "meglomaniacal". Anytime someone asks you for sources of your edits, you think of this as a personal attack. See the posts from others, above - this is not only between you and I. It seems even an admin

abandoned trying to work things out with you due to the fact you continuously attack people who don't agree with you. --Danteferno 10:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the points made above, I too have fallen victim to the same actions and attacks of Leyasu - Deathrocker 14:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

same here. his spontaneous reverts are biased upon his personal opinion and he invents reasons to undo the work of others.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.8.73.247 (talk • contribs)

Protection

I'm taking a bit of a break from controversy at the moment ;). Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Thanks! --Cel e stianpower ^háblame 18:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]