Talk:Metal Sludge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject Metal (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.


will somebody make this undeleted to give the article Metal sludge its correct title. on that article its notablity has been proven now, with the tours, the album, the famous guest contributors (people in high profile bands), etc. - Sister1000 11:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally done. FMAFan1990 11:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Page protection? Vandalism in the Original Gossip Board section[edit]

The section on the gossip board has been targeted with repeated edits that add material disallowed by WP:BLP and/or WP:RPA. If this continues, does anybody object if I protect the page? —C.Fred (talk) 17:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Why did you erase my edit?[edit]

I am a mod at MS. Stop editing our page just because of a couple crybabies who have literally nothing to do with the site. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainpain (talkcontribs) 23:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it because it adds nothing to the article besides add some fluff. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect Falcon, you know nothing about our site. For you to make that judgement makes zero sense. It actually speaks to the exact spirit of our site. The two idiot trolls who got your ear need to be ignored and the edit reverted. Thank you in advance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainpain (talkcontribs)

You're right, I don't really know anything about your site; I don't know what you are talking about in regards to trolls talking to me, the material in question just isn't unencyclopedic. It's great that you have a thriving online community, but a list of users not notable for anything besides their arbitrary posts on Metal Sludge is unnecessary. For example, none of the other articles on forums have lists of their users and moderators (to the best of my knowledge) for the same reason. Falcon8765 (talk) 01:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me but it seems as if you're saying because we're unique it's no good. Those mentioned are known by literally thousands and thousands of posters in our community for many reasons, and for the past decade, not "arbitrary posts". The truth is those I have added are 500 times more "encyclopedic" than those who were written up before. That previous article is so ridiculously antiquated you might as well write your name there. They are meaningless to our site and have been for the past 9 years. I would like to see the MS section become remotely recognizable and relevant or what is the point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainpain (talkcontribs) 04:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I intend no offense towards you or your site; if I had seen the previous list of users I would have removed that too. Honestly, I don't care a huge amount about the issue at hand, feel free to improve the article as necessary; I can't promise that someone else won't remove a list of users if they come across it though. Falcon8765 (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The edit that I make is what I want it to stay like or "revert back to" if one of the trolls I spoke of came across it and changed it further in any way. Thank you so much for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainpain (talkcontribs) 21:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the text is that it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The paragraph before, while it should be sourced, is at least written in a fact-based manner. The paragraph you keep adding is laced with descriptions like "re-posting nit-wits who live to paraphrase Wiki and bore all with their immaterial preambles" and "The Intrawebz Greatest Tardball." By identifying specific users (which I did not in this discussion), the text crosses over into the realm of the potentially defamatory. In those cases, guidelines such as WP:BLP require sourcing. If you can find an independent reliable source that describes that user as you did, then the text can be re-added. Finally, Wikpedia is not a directory. A current roster of users is not appropriate. Pointing out a few notable users is. —C.Fred (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


With the amount of vandalism in recent days, should this page be protected? I am getting sick on undoing edits from the same user. Frehley72 (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2010 (UTC)