User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 9

Inkubus Sukkubus

Hi! You appear to have reverted the Inkubus Sukkubus entry to the previous, very inaccurate one, without giving any reason for the change? Why did you do this? 83.136.121.65 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I take it you refer to this edit. This edit was a bit of clumsy reverting on my behalf - my intention was to uncapitalize the genres, but I also accidentally reverted some good-faith edits - completely my mistake, apologies. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be persistently de-capitalising Gothic rock in this article while leaving Pagan rock capitalised. In correct British usage both should be capitalised, however having both lowercase would be acceptable if a good reason or Wikipedia tradition could be cited. But one upper and one lower is inconsistent and hence breaches the MoS. Any reason why you keep lowercasing one and not the other? I can't see anything in the Wikipedia MoS that dictates whether genre names should be capitalised or not, but traditional general usage is that names should be capitalised. The spirit of winter (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It's funny you should bring this up, as I was only just re-considering leaving "pagan" capitalized. Gothic, I'm sure shouldn't be capitalized (I went onto a few other articles on Wiki with the word "gothic" in them to verify), however, leaving "pagan" capitalized was because I felt that "pagan" would be capitalized (similar how to Viking metal is capitalized). However, after going over a few articles, I realise that also should be lower case, and it was simply my error that meant "pagan" should be upper caps. I'll proceed to change the genres to be lower case, unless you have already. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

newpages

Hi, I have removed the Special:newpages transclusion from your userpage[1] as it is unfriendly to have that firehose of garbage being pointed at the Google servers in this way; for good or ill, Google caches your userpage. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well - I didn't realise that having the newpages up would be such a problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanism

Groups section is up. What do you think? :) Sticky Parkin 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the article's looking fantastic as a whole! Compared to what it is now, it was barely an article before you got to it! The groups part looks good also - very well sourced. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooh a barnstar- that one's much appreciated as it's the first one I've got for actually doing some work on wiki:) So thanks a lot:) As you can see I've asked a couple of people to come on spot any weaknesses in the article...I can't bear to look yet lol .:) Sticky Parkin 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the satanic articles should be one article? I've thrown it all together in my userspace, this obviously is not the finished version but I think it could be done and would provide a good overview. User:Sticky_Parkin/Satanism Ignore that it still says 'theistic satanism' in headings and stuff because I've not changed it yet.:) However I don't know if it's advisable or not as they are in effect two different religions, but I suppose they are always compared to each other and sort of share a history. There could be a separate article for the extended list of doctrines and so on in the LaVeyan Satanism article- User:Sticky Parkin/LaVeyan Philosophy or something, or they could go in Anton LaVey or one of the other articles, or just be summrised and go in the main one. Sticky Parkin 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think they should remain in the articles that they are in now, merging them seems a bit unnessescary. When I clicked on your first link, I thought that size would be the main issue, but in hindsight, it isn't that bad - what I'm concerned about is that there's different views of Satanism being put together in one article, when they are clearly notable enough to be seperate. Apart from the name of the religions, they are very different. Where did these ideas come from? The discussions on the theistic Satanism page? I havn't been reading said discussions in the past couple of days, y'see ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There's been nothing new there really I don't think since User:NeoFreak said the article shouldn't exist.:) I'm glad you agree with what I maybe subconsciously hoped lol because I thought if push comes to shove, the powers that be on wiki might be convinced that T.S. is not worth it's own article. I'm a worrier you see lol.:) Also, if there ever was a composite satanism article, it could more easily be a GA or FA, and people couldn't say it was a content fork. You know they've done studies that what determines whether something is a FA is mainly the length?:) Personally when reading wikipedia, longer articles are too long for my attention span lol.:)Sticky Parkin 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll have to agree with you, hehe. Still, I think NeoFreak's the only one thus far that has expressed distaste towards the article's being there, so I'm sure if it'll come to it proper, the articles will remain as they are. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

RE: E-Mail

Hey! Uh, nope, I have not done that yet. I do have an email address, but not a wikipedia one or anything. How do i got about creating one? Thanks, btw, for sticking up for me on the metalcore article, and in other instances. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go to your "my preferences" section and put your email in there; it's designed so that I can email you, but your email remains anonymous, as does mine (it'll just say something like The_Haunted_Angel@wikipedia.org, or something to that effect). I think you may have to verify it quickly, it's just something I wish to bring to your attention, that I'd rather not say on Wikipedia itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, okay. I just enabled it, but I still don't see anything on my user or talk page. Did I mess up? Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I think you've done it right - it says I can email you now; so just keep an eye on your inbox. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok. how did you do that, though? Send me an email, I mean. I went to your user and talk page and I didn't see an option to email you. Maybe I'm just an idiot. It's a very real possibility. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

It's on the left, when you're on the person's user page, half way down the tool box - it'll say "E-mail this user" ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks. Well I responded to your email. Sorry, it took me so long to get back to you, I had class. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Also

On that same topic, I see you had to revert the other IP user on metalcore. They just never stop. I looked through that IP's edits and they've made a lot of bad edits and a lot of bad faith warnings for vandalism to people who didn't vandalize at all (like me) and were just changing things in a way that pissed off said IP user, I guess. That user needs to stop. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this. This particular user has EXCESSIVELY warred with me every time they get on (which is luckily only around twice a month). The user just reverted me yesterday as you can see when I edited the metalhead article and greatly improved it. I noticed something, though (it could be a coincidence). Besides always trying to war with me, this user has also warred with a user by the name of Angry Shoplifter. Well guess what? One of those two IP users that reverted me twice on the metalcore article (not the one that only had two or three edits; the other one) happens to have warred with Angry Shoplifter as well, in their short number of edits. Coincidence? Possibly, but I think not. There's no proving it, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude! You are NOT going to believe this. Look at this. Yet another IP user, right? And he reverts me on Overkill, where other IP users reverted me AND his hisotry shows he edited Tom Petty. Well, guess what? Look at this user's contributions. The one who reverted me on metalcore. Notice some similarities? They BOTH reverted an edit on Overkill and both reverted edits on Tom Petty AND the latter one I just listed is the one who's been warring with Angry Shoplifter!!!! Same as the one I listed above!!!! So, how much would you like to bet that all three of those users are the one and same person. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Woah, holy crap - it's sock puppet week by the looks of things! I see what you're saying, and that Tom Petty edit really clinches it for me. My guess is we are quickly gaining the evidence we need for WP:SSP - we just need to find who the puppeteer is. Feel free to remove this post from your talk page though (if you do, I'll do the same on mine), just in case the puppeteer sees - although if s/he does, at least they may stop the edit warring. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

They've shown that they won't stop anyways. BTW, I found sopme more IP editors who ALSO seem to be the same as the ones already listed (at least I think they're different than the ones listed, it can get confusing). Here and here. Even if these two aren't the same user as the rest, they're definitely sockpuppets of each other. I don't care if a search shows they're from different countries. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Genre delimiter trouble!

Hey, what's up? We got problems! During my absence I see that line breaks have seemingly become more popular for metal bands (at least). That's fine but look at the Template:Infobox Musical artist. Someone recently changed it while I was gone. It now has both infoboxes with comma breaks! That doesn't even make sense, to have two infoboxes that are the same. One is supposed to have comma breaks and the other line breaks. This means trouble. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey man - I've looked through the history, but I can't actually find where it was ever line breaks, unless I just missed it. Still, it's got full protection - no one but a sysop can edit it. Still, I don't think it's going to be that bad yet, as there's still no agreed upon consensus for what is right and wrong... Still, we should keep an eye out ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I know about the history thing. For some reason that page has always had a problem with the history. No matter what date you look at it all looks the same. Just look at the edit summaries and you will see what they are talking about but you won't see the change. But if you're like me, I used to visit that page all the time and the infobox on the right with Audioslave had line break in the genre section. Kameejl was instrumental in making that happen and I'll not soon forget it. We discussed it in my archives somewhere. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, on another look, I think it's all just made up of templates and such, whereas the infobox code itself is what's protected. Either way, we'll have to keep an eye out to see if people have decided that commas are right, when there is no consensus. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That would explain it. Well more people seem to be in favor of line breaks at the moment (at least on metal band articles) but people who prefer comma breaks might start changing them and citing the template now that it's been changed. As far as I know, there is no consensus. It looks like it might have been changed just because someone felt that line breaks only pertained to more rock and metal articles and not to the whole wikipedia, and they believed it should be uniform or something. The problem is, comma breaks do work alright for most music artist articles, but when you come to rock and especially metal bands, you start getting long genre names and a mixing of multiple genres (or a change of them) and so you get this info that requires much more space, which I think favors the line breaks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I do agree with you; I havn't seen as much discussion on the subject though in the past month or so. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Kmaeejl reverted it back! Cheers! Wikipedia is once again safe...or as safe as it gets. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Music of the Night

Hi there,

I received a message that I had "vandalised" an article on "the music of the night". This is untrue. Indeed, I expanded the article by explaining the origin of the theme that Lloyd Webber uses in that song - it is lifted (as I wrote) from Puccini's opera La Fanciulla del West. I thus intend to change the article back.

I look forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.99.176 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit which I reffered to was this one, where you claim that Lloyd Webber "stole" the theme. This constitutes vanadalism as it is classed as defamation of Living persons - it was an unsourced claim at Lloyd Webber's expense. Even though you have worded it better now, I'm afraid I will still have to remove it based on a lack of evidence. Hope this clears things up ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Prize fighter inferno.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Prize fighter inferno.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) --BlueAzure (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

NWOAHM

I was wondering what you thought of something. The New Wave of American Heavy Metal. Do you believe it exists or not? I personally, do not. I think it's the same thing as metalcore which is where it used to redirect. User:Lykantrop sees otherwise and created the article which I am now contemplating deleting. I have made many of my arguements here on the "NWOAHM" talk page and made even more on the talk page of metalcore in the section about this "NWOAHM." I think it does not exist for many reasons and per WP:NEO and pure logic it should be deleted. Tell me what you think. If you need to here some of my arguments for why it doesn't exist feel free to ask and I'll deliver a pile of 'em. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm honestly not completely sure. To begin with, I was in total agreement with you, but Lykantrop has made a few good points; however, I'm making it out to be more than it is. NWOAHM just seems to be little more than an umbrella term covering groove, metalcore, and possibly either elements of thrash or melo-death at best - the same way extreme metal covers thrash, doom, black and death. For all intents and purposes, I'd have to agree with you over Lykantrop; for the most part, it does just seem to be metalcore and its varients. On the one hand, it is a bit of a neologism - on the other, Lykantrop has done a fine job of sourcing the article; so I'm a bit on the fence - so much so that I've mostly chosen not to get involved. I don't support Lykantrop enough to defend the article, and although I am more on your side of the fence than his, I don't truly oppose the article enough to nominate it for deletion. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Well if it gets nominated for deletion I'll let you know and you can feel free to discuss it at the AfD at that time if you wish. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 16:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

wiki black metal project

I am a new member of wikipedia and have decided to join the black metal project and was wondering if you could give me an idea of things to do. as i said i am a new member and do not know a whole lot about wikipedia. Chipthief00 (talk) 05:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, before you get too involved in the WikiProject, I recommend taking a look at this, and all the links on it - it is a list of our core policies on Wikipedia. Once you feel you have a general idea of how Wikipedia works, feel free to add your name to the black metal project. On the main page, we have a collaberation of the week, where you can help work on a select article - any further work is usually mentioned on the discussion page. Hope this helps! ≈ The Haunted Angel 11:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008

The edit in question was reverting a removal of the Viking metal genre, when no justification was given. As no justification was given, I deem it vandalism, and so will disregard your "warning". ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Amon Amarth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 08:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the 3RR exemption for vandalism applies only to simple and obvious vandalism, that is "edits which any well-intentioned user would immediately agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking, adding bad language, etc." Stifle (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Amon Amarth. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. You just finished a block for violating 3RR and now you've reverted that same article again??? You do realise what will result from that don't you? Libs (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I realise what the result will be - but I do not intend to break the 3RR. It is clear that the same editor is using numerous IP's to dodge the 3RR, whereas I cannot. His edit is clearly unjustified, but there is little action that can be taken against his sock puppetry. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks like you don't know what the result will be if you revert a page within 24 hours after being blocked for breaking 3RR in the first place. And 3RR doesn't necessarily mean even reverting 3 times in a 24 hour period. If you show a repeat pattern of reverting a page against the consensus of other editors then you are defining yourself as an edit warrior and will be blocked anyways even if you only reverted once a day. Navlos has learned the hard way on that and that is why he is a blacklisted editor who will never be seen as anything other than a troll and a useless contributor to Wikipedia. If that is the path you wish to follow then that is certainly your choice. But you are already blacklisted on the vandal hunter lists just for the edit patterns that you have shown. You will never be granted any rollback rights from an administrator and you will never be able to let your name stand for administrator voting because of your blacklisting. You need to investigate the meaning of WP:SOCK as well. The same editor using numerous IPs???? Have you done an IP check on those IPs? Obviously not. One os from the north of England, one is from the south of England, one was from Western Australia, one was from Eastern Australia and one of them was a veteran editor from the west coast of Canada. Pretty hard to be the same editor when it takes 36 hours of travel time just to get between all those locations. Wikipedia has lots of maps. Perhaps you should study them. Sockpuppet IPs are IPs originating from the same place. You reverted edits that were separted by tens of thousands of miles. If you want it spelled out for you then here it is... you were 1 editor reverting the edits of many. The edits of many = consensus which is what Wikipedia was built on. You received a light sentence for you first block so you were lucky. If you want to be blocked for a week then just say the word... repeat your offence and your wish will be granted. Avoid the mistakes that Navlos made. He had potential and he blew it. Now his contributions here are all pretty much reverted whether they are valid or not because editors have no respect for him and admins can't stand him at all. Be careful not to crawl under his bridge. He already has plenty of company there. Libs (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Somehow, I think a certain bias towards Nav is evident here, but I won't get into that. To be fair, I should have used the WHOIS tool, but I still find it hard to believe that this many IP's all decided to make the same edit all at once. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I'll be keeping an eye out for any futher signs of sock puppetry. You are free to make any futher threats you wish; I know the what the result will be, and so I will act accordingly. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I've already been granted roll back rights. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't recall threatening anyone? Just thought you would be interested in knowing you were showing up in VP boxes as a "Red" user. Also I noted that your reverts yesterday were done using Twinkle which is a vandal tool not a content dispute tool. The edits you reverted were not vandalism. They weren't even close to vandalism. Had you used your rollback rights to revert those edits your rollback rights would have been taken away from you almost instantly. Rollback was a very testy subject when it was first introduced and many admins actually quit the project over editors being given those rights because of the chance of abuse of it. Rollback is no different than Twinkle. They have a single purpose. And it isn't for reverting the contributions of another, or in your case many others, just because they have reached a format agreement that differs from your own POV. If an admin sees that you are using Twinkle in a content dispute... it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they decided to remove the rollback rights just as a precaution. Come out from under Navlos' bridge. PS, WHOIS isn't very accurate. Use geobytes. It'll pinpointnt your IPs right down to the nearest street corner. It's a much better tool for determining IP location. Hope that helps. Libs (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, Twinkle is not a tool designed only for vandals - which is why there's an AGF option on it. Secondly, I wasn't using the rollback, nor the "rollback - vandalism" function, I was simply using the "revert to this edit" function, which is little more than a quicker way of loading the earlier edit and saving it - there was no abuse of Twinkle involved. My mention of your threats was more ambiguous - in my humble opinion, you sounded rather threatening in your previous message. Although, WHOIS at least separated the various IPs. Still, I find it rather coincidental that the same edits are made by IPs at the same time. ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been editing here for four years. In over 50000 edits I have never seen anyone ring up a $400 phone bill just to prove a point. :-). Libs (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Four years and 50,000 edits? Not that I'm calling you a liar or anything, but with what account or IP address did you do all these edits? ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

???I am Libs. You don't know who Libs is? Have you been stuck under a Wiki rock :-) ? The editor Navlos refers to as the 156 IP man? I have been here as long as there has been a Wikipedia to be here for. Under my original account I rolled over 20000 edits in my first year alone(most were vandal rv's) And I was prompted... and I quickly rejected.... 15 attempts to nominate me as an admin. When I saw a growing trend of "anti-anon" happening... something I felt went against what Wikipedia stood for... I rejected my original account and began to edit under the purity of anonymity. After 300000 edits as an anon... (99% from my eastern Canadian 156.X IP range (which included my static work IP which was adorned with Barnstars for my anon contributions)... I decided, just recently, to join the "logged in" population again with this account which was named after 2 things... my IP nickname, Libs (because I am a librarian) and the naming format Wiki libs is a tip of the hat to my good friend, longtime administrator, Wiki alf. Admin Bubba Hotep was the one who originally dubbed me Libs. A name which has stuck for almost 2 years. I do not work within the regular channels of Wikipedia. I find WP:ANI, WP:AiV and other noticeboards to be roadblocks when trying to get something done quick. I can't count the number of admins I have as MSN friends. When I want someone blocked from editing I don;t bother with ANI... it's too slow. 1 quick email or chat post and any editor I find to be an offending thorn is gone. That being said I do not use that route very often. Since many people AGF'd for me when I was a lowly anon. I tend to AGF even the worst of trolls if I feel there may be some glimmer of hope on their Wiki-future. I had actuallt quit Wikpedia just recently over a gross admin blunder which I felt scarred the project beyond hope. It was only after receiving over 60 emails from other Wikipedia editors asking me to return that I decided to don the "Wiki libs" hat and come back to the project. Hope that explains the libsy-history a little. Feel free to ask for help anytime you want. I do not contribute with the same fervour that I used to. But I am usually not too far away. Libs (talk) 02:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't about to call you a liar or anything; it's just that I had a hard time believing 50,000 edits over four years, given this, but if you say you edit anonymously for so long, I'll take your word for it - I believe I stumbled upon an IP page a while ago that had received numerous barnstars and the like, and even though I can't remember what the IP was, I presume it was most likely you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey Haunted Angel. Libs here again. adding a quick post, unlogged for your benefit. I noticed your paranoia page and also noticed your inclusion of my name on it. So I thought I would post this little note just to ease you mind a little where my global whereabouts were. You may go ahead with any sort of RCU you wish with my Wiki libs username and Tswx and the different British and Australian and Western Canadian editors. But as you can see for yourself... 156.X is about as far east in North America as anyone can get without being in the Atlantic Ocean. And... just to give you a little more info here is a partial list of all the IPs I've ever edited from: 156.34.142.158, 156.34.208.112, 156.34.208.163, 156.34.208.166, 156.34.208.171, 156.34.208.218, 156.34.208.227, 156.34.208.42, 156.34.208.47, 156.34.208.51, 156.34.208.95, 156.34.209.108, 156.34.209.124, 156.34.209.136, 156.34.209.197, 156.34.209.209, 156.34.209.217, 156.34.209.221, 156.34.209.23, 156.34.209.240, 156.34.209.243, 156.34.209.34, 156.34.209.39, 156.34.209.52, 156.34.210.119, 156.34.210.147, 156.34.210.158, 156.34.210.185, 156.34.210.243, 156.34.210.252, 156.34.210.255, 156.34.210.28, 156.34.210.47, 156.34.210.48, 156.34.210.6, 156.34.210.66, 156.34.211.13, 156.34.211.133, 156.34.211.166, 156.34.211.18, 156.34.211.181, 156.34.211.193, 156.34.211.215, 156.34.211.237, 156.34.211.242, 156.34.211.41, 156.34.211.58, 156.34.211.60, 156.34.211.93, 156.34.212.136, 156.34.212.143, 156.34.212.184, 156.34.212.230, 156.34.212.57, 156.34.212.88, 156.34.212.94, 156.34.213.102, 156.34.213.120, 156.34.213.146, 156.34.213.161, 156.34.213.177, 156.34.213.204, 156.34.213.216, 156.34.213.235, 156.34.213.29, 156.34.213.34, 156.34.213.35, 156.34.213.52, 156.34.213.97, 156.34.214.105, 156.34.214.115, 156.34.214.123, 156.34.214.159, 156.34.214.181, 156.34.214.205, 156.34.214.237, 156.34.214.29, 156.34.214.68, 156.34.214.76, 156.34.215.109, 156.34.215.110, 156.34.215.122, 156.34.215.139, 156.34.215.179, 156.34.215.188, 156.34.215.201, 156.34.215.210, 156.34.215.213, 156.34.215.218, 156.34.215.223, 156.34.215.31, 156.34.215.43, 156.34.215.45, 156.34.215.47, 156.34.215.61, 156.34.216.110, 156.34.216.115, 156.34.216.119, 156.34.216.130, 156.34.216.139, 156.34.216.15, 156.34.216.159, 156.34.216.162, 156.34.216.200, 156.34.216.202, 156.34.216.210, 156.34.216.32, 156.34.216.38, 156.34.216.45, 156.34.216.55, 156.34.216.68, 156.34.216.90, 156.34.217.110, 156.34.217.117, 156.34.217.154, 156.34.217.192, 156.34.217.216, 156.34.217.221, 156.34.217.48, 156.34.217.80, 156.34.217.92, 156.34.218.130, 156.34.218.194, 156.34.218.199, 156.34.218.212, 156.34.218.243, 156.34.218.248, 156.34.218.39, 156.34.218.49, 156.34.218.58, 156.34.218.69, 156.34.218.74, 156.34.219.11, 156.34.219.119, 156.34.219.132, 156.34.219.175, 156.34.219.191, 156.34.219.206, 156.34.219.214, 156.34.219.217, 156.34.219.222, 156.34.219.240, 156.34.219.247, 156.34.219.252, 156.34.219.32, 156.34.219.50, 156.34.219.85, 156.34.219.89, 156.34.219.91, 156.34.220.123, 156.34.220.124, 156.34.220.13, 156.34.220.142, 156.34.220.145, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.185, 156.34.220.210, 156.34.220.222, 156.34.220.50, 156.34.220.66, 156.34.221.111, 156.34.221.115, 156.34.221.137, 156.34.221.149, 156.34.221.170, 156.34.221.175, 156.34.221.214, 156.34.221.221, 156.34.221.249, 156.34.221.252, 156.34.221.29, 156.34.221.31, 156.34.221.39, 156.34.221.76, 156.34.221.89, 156.34.221.91, 156.34.221.99, 156.34.222.110, 156.34.222.121, 156.34.222.133, 156.34.222.140, 156.34.222.2, 156.34.222.204, 156.34.222.210, 156.34.222.231, 156.34.222.247, 156.34.222.38, 156.34.222.50, 156.34.222.9, 156.34.223.115, 156.34.223.124, 156.34.223.144, 156.34.223.171, 156.34.223.178, 156.34.223.191, 156.34.223.204, 156.34.223.225, 156.34.223.236, 156.34.223.238, 156.34.223.26, 156.34.223.41, 156.34.224.105, 156.34.224.2, 156.34.224.83, 156.34.225.235, 156.34.225.50, 156.34.225.75, 156.34.225.77, 156.34.226.159, 156.34.226.160, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.197, 156.34.226.252, 156.34.226.76, 156.34.226.99, 156.34.227.11, 156.34.227.140, 156.34.227.195, 156.34.228.106, 156.34.228.140, 156.34.228.22, 156.34.228.60, 156.34.228.63, 156.34.228.95, 156.34.229.100, 156.34.229.239, 156.34.230.106, 156.34.230.166, 156.34.230.187, 156.34.230.78, 156.34.230.90, 156.34.231.155, 156.34.231.30, 156.34.231.56, 156.34.231.74, 156.34.232.128, 156.34.232.134, 156.34.232.93, 156.34.233.153, 156.34.233.42, 156.34.233.79, 156.34.234.163, 156.34.234.7, 156.34.235.195, 156.34.235.217, 156.34.235.222, 156.34.235.69, 156.34.235.98, 156.34.236.16, 156.34.236.193, 156.34.236.222, 156.34.236.3, 156.34.236.46, 156.34.236.51, 156.34.237.192, 156.34.237.194, 156.34.237.214, 156.34.238.173, 156.34.238.179, 156.34.238.192, 156.34.238.220, 156.34.239.151, 156.34.239.197, 156.34.239.61, 156.34.252.246. There may be a few more. I never actually tracked my own IPs. An admin friend compiled that list for me. If you can prove that Tswx has used any one of those IPs I would leave Wikipedia forever. It is my belief that Tswx lives on continental Europe. I vaguely remember reading somewhere he had posted that he was Swiss??? I do not dislike Navlos. I am simply fed up with his trolling and his ignorance of all assistance to improve as an editor and not be so dispised by the community. When he first started I offered him my help many times. But my offers were rejected and he spiraled down into the editor that we've all come to know. If I really disliked him I would've had him banned ages ago. My AGF is that he will become a positive editor someday. He will never be acccepted completely or trusted completely as his youth and temper always seem to get the better of him. But he may at least get to a stage where 90% of his edits have to be reverted as totally useless. Which is where is is right now by his own hand. As for commas vs linebreaks I actually use both. I am the only editor who ever proposed a compromise that would satisfy both camps. The comma supporters clearly have a majority. But the code supporters were more vocal and hard-headed. My compromise was simple. If there were only 2 genres listed... then a line break was adaquate. If there were 3 or more genres listed then a comma should be used in order to keep the box from getting too long(= ugly). AND... there there was a dispute over genres and citations had to be added (which I hate because I believe cites shouls go in the article body not the box) then the genres, with references, were easier viewed using linebreaks. Now you can see that was a pretty clear headed proposal on my part. One that would satisfy eveyone. It can never be one or the other. There has to be compromise. And my plan was simple and perfect. But it slipped through the cracks. SO... regardless of what either camp wishes to see... MY RULE is the rule I follow and everyone else can pretty much go to h*ll on it because both camps have been nothing but babies about the whole stupid (and you must admit it IS pretty stupid) argument. Want to help Wikipedia progress? Follow my rule of thumb. It's simple. It's easy to follow. It promotes positive progress instead of edit wars. It even promotes the only rule that the genre box ever had in the first place... aim for generality. If a line-break supporter really wanted to use a br code so bad... they would be forced to clean up some of the superfluous (and in many cases retarded) genres just to get it down to 2 so that they could use their little code. Even young Navlos should be able to follow that rule don't you think? Good luck in your editing. Feel free to ask for my help. And have a nice day! Wiki libs 156.34.142.110 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Paranoia page? Well, my friend, you are welcome to call it paranoia if you wish, but I personally wouldn't go that far, and would simply call it scepticism. Of course, I realise it initially looks absurd, the idea that editors from across the globe are the same person, but, even though I'm surely on my way to mental insanity, I don't think I've quite reached it yet - and still maintain that it is still very odd that numerous IPs edit the same thing, on their first edit, at the same time. Who knows, perhaps it's simply a few people who have friends on an instant messenger or some forum, who happen to live on opposite ends of the world, who are doing this. This is of course, mere speculation, and is certainly approaching paranoia.
I am actually quite loathed to put Twsx's name up there - not because I have anything against him, but rather, for the opposite reason. I've spoken with Twsx numerous times, and he seems like a sensible, upstanding user, who is far to mature to do the things I have suggested. As the page says, he is there more for reference than anything.
I do thank you for your extensive list of IPs; due to the huge number and the fact that I havn't encountered any previously in the line break/comma war, I won't be adding them to my page, but your cooperation in this matter is still appreciated. Again, please don't feel offended that your name is there, but for the moment, I'd like to keep any user names that have taken part in this "war" (whether for good or ill) in one place, simply for reference. I'm not so convinced that you are any of those IPs (the ones I wrote down, not the ones you provided), as your IP page is rather well decorated with barn stars and the like, and you do seem trusted. However, and please do not think I'm assuming bad faith or simply being paranoid, I would just like to ensure that I know who's who, and who is doing what.
Yes, your idea of what the consensus should be does sound good; but in my humble opinion, may look like there is no MoS at first glance. You may have guessed that I am in favour of line breaks, but I can assure you, if the consensus was, hands down, that infoboxes should all have commas, then I would change every article I saw to commas without complaint - I simply wish there to be one agreed upon style. You may find it hard to believe, but Navnløs also feels the same way - he may prefer the line breaks, but he has stated that if the consensus was commas, he would enforce it (forgive the "military"-style wording, there).
I have in the past, tried to resolve the comma/line break war, but that was on the one article, and was before I realised that this conflict would go site-wide; so try not to think of me as someone who is trying to just force their preference upon all the articles. What I am trying to do, however, is something Navnløs bought up a while ago, when he and Twsx resolved their differences - keep the format how it was originally. The Amon Amarth article, where most of this started, originally had line breaks. Other articles originally had commas. As there is no consensus, Navnløs (and now myself) has tried to keep the format on articles the original way, no matter what way it was; this way, we are avoiding pushing our PoV (line breaks) on people, and keeping their PoV off the article. If it was written as commas originally, then that's fine. If it was written as line breaks, then we keep it as that. It's evolved past something of opinion, and more into trying to keep the peace. The problem is (which was why I was banned once, and Nav has been banned numerous times), is that certain editors will jump IPs fairly quickly to avoid breaking the 3RR or avoid warnings, leaving us powerless. That is why I broke the 3RR knowingly and willingly. If you visit my "paranoia" page, as you reffered to it as, you will notice certain IPs grouped together. Check out the 165.X ones - all from Austrailia. Two of them are from a different part of Austrailia (the same as each other though), wheras the rest are all the same place. My guess is, and I'm sure the guess of any sensible editor, is that they're all the same person - perhaps they were at College, a friend's house or a library for the two other edits; but I'm more than conviced that they were all the same person. Whether they are the same as the other IPs (including the others grouped together, more than likly the same person), I have yet to determine - but I will try to gather as much evidence as I can for this. My personal (and possibly paranoid) theory, is that it is a someone who has friends Internet friends who are able to help him. It may sound insane, but I myself have a few friends from various countries who could possibly pull a stunt like this, if I asked them.
Thanks again for your cooperation and understanding in this, Libs ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply. I just wanted to comment on an edit from yours from a few days back. This little guy right here to be specific. When you look at the start page of Wikipedia it says the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Anyone means just that... anyone. And, in the Wiki-world, an anon edit is just as important as a user account edit. Sometimes even more so because many dedicated anons, and I was one, edit without any want or regard for Wiki glory like barnstars or adminship. They edit simply becuase they are dedicated to the project. So your "numerous IPs does not count as consensus" is completely opposite what Wikipedia was created for. And also... completely wrong too. IP consensus is just as important as account consensus, project consensus and even admin consensus. If not... then "the encyclopedia anyone can edit" is a lie. Libs (talk) 23:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify - I didn't mean that IP's don't count towards helping establish a consensus, but instead that there was no actual consensus to whether the band pages should have line breaks or commas, and a handful of IPs editing said article does not create a consensus - the same way that a handful of user names adding line breaks does not create a consensus - is must be agreed upon. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

People!

Well, I'm sorry you were blocked. You didn't deserve that. Those IPs seem to want to unneccesarily war for no reason. Yes, there is a consensus on albums, but no one follows them. At least not on the metal pages that I've seen. And I've seen a LOT of them. Some have comma breaks, though most have line breaks. Libs is a total extremist. He has constantly insulted me with crap like this, "he is a blacklisted editor who will never be seen as anything other than a troll and a useless contributor to Wikipedia" for along time. Now, maybe I deserved it before, but it gets old and he's also completely lying when he says everyone reverts my edits. I rarely get reverted. I think it's interesting that he talks so much crap about me, how I'm a troll and everything, when his best wikifriend and admin, Scarian talks back and forth with me now and then, that we have spoked a couples times on msn messenger and emailed each other and as far as I know, thinks I'm an alright guy. Scarian has even helped me out in many a situation. Hell, he even once nominated me for adminship (I thought it was a joke, but he assured me it wasn't). Some people can't move on and get over the past. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 17:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Its me American Brit. I have decided to come back and give us another try. I still like you and wander if your okay. I also pray at night for you. Will you at least forgive me and we can move on? You were my favorite person and I want us to get back to normal. Deal? Brit Back (talk) 01:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Amon Amarth

Hey Twsx; before I say this, let me just note that I really do not wish to start an edit war (or any sort of personal war) against you, as I think you're a good editor. Still, just to clear up the Amon Amarth thing - it wasn't a lie about the line breaks being part of the MoS (I did make use of the word "also", acknowledging that commas are part of the MoS as well), as can be seen in one of the two examples here. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I am aware. Nevertheless, that part of the comment was very missleading, giving unaware editors a falsified impression of the policy. Also, the comment was warning users to not do something which is clearly also in support of policy, which would be the reason why i have removed the comment fully. Though, as i am sure you have noticed, i did not and will not touch the formatting of the genre field, so i think this should not be reason for any grudge between us. Even if you consider have considered the possibility of me being a sock puppeteer. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 13:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I knew adding your name to that list would give the wrong impression. I never really thought you would be a puppeteer; as I said to Libs, I think you're far more mature than that, as I know you've passed the edit war already. I simply put your name there as this is really where most of the edit warring began (not that I'm implying that it was your fault in any way); but I felt a bit bad having your name there, as it really did seem to give the wrong impression, and so I've removed it. Sorry for bad faith I may have shown! ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh don't worry, i was only poking. :) ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 14:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's alright - but I still just want to it clear that I wasn't accusing you of sock puppetry or anything ^_~ ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually believe Twsx has too much honor to do something like that. Even if I don't always agree with him, I have only on a couple occasions seen him piss off people who may have been in the right. But I don't think I've ever seen him overtly break any rules and I honestly don't believe he would. I scare myself sometimes. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Brilliant

Just read the Cradle of Filth article and wanted to say how well written I thought it was. It's balanced, articulate, interesting. Ticks all the boxes. Just an excellent text. Well done. You must have spend quite some time on it.

---

Karpatia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpatia (talk • contribs) 13:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Very much so - but it'd be very wrong of me to even assume it got as good as it did thanks to me - Cardinal Wurzel did as much work, if not more than me, so a lot of the credit goes to him. Thank you very much for compliment, nonetheless ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your possible sockpuppet IP list

It looks fine to me. I seriously wish Libs would get off my case. I understand I made mistakes in the past. And Libs is not a bad editor, though he should realize he can be a bit of an extremist at times, too. But he needs to get over the past and stop insulting me. He may never get that chance, though. I edit less and less on wikipedia (if you haven't noticed). I just care less and less. When rules are always being broken (and no, not by me) and people are less and less interested in the truth (not to mention I'm sure some of the sheep who read wikipedia and accept anything it says contribute to the problem). Anyways, I basically don't have any motivation to edit because of assholes. Sorry, but let's call them what they are. I won't name any names (and no, I'm not talking about Libs, as infuriating as he is) but some people are just plain thick. Anyways, back to your list, drop me a line if you need any help or anything like that.

PS Did you know that I actually thought (and still contemplate it at times) of making another account and doing all these great edits and not getting involved with any edit wars or anything and become an admin...just to prove I could, you know? And then come out and admit I was Navnlos and laugh at all those people (like Libs) who said I was a shitty editor. But I figured if I ever did that, the second I admitted I was Navnlos...I would be banned, due to sockpuppetry, even though I would only be making "good" edits. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with you - at times I've felt the care of editing Wikipedia start to dwindle. The main problem I've realised, is that, especially in the comma/line break war, the anons can do as they wish, and jump IP before they can be properly warned, leaving us defenceless against either letting them have their own way, or us breaking the 3RR. Adding Twsx and Libs to that list wasn't probably a great idea - again, I wasn't really accusing them or anything (Twsx especially, I agree with you when you say he has too much honor for that), but more for easy reference. And your alt user name idea sounds good, but yeah, unfortunately one would be blocked due to sock puppetry. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well I agree with you 100%. It doesn't seem fair. I wish there was more protection from anons. I've talked about banning them altogether before, and forcing people to make accounts. But I realize people are lazy and I know there's been a lot of good edits to come from anons, too (though I think anons have caused more destruction than good editing). Multiple anons or w/e are a huge problem, too. They're the worst (like this one. The ones that belong to hundreds of users. They can't be indefinitely blocked because more than one person uses it and they might not all be vandals. But my experience with those particular kinds of anons is that...well, they're used by all vandals. And they'll even beg to be unblocked because it wasn't "them" who did the vandalizing and so they'll be unblocked just to do it all over again. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree with you completely there. I've said before, and still believe, that one must have an account to edit - if an IP wants to edit so badly, it'd take a mere minute to set up a user name. Still, an IP could jump usernames fairly quickly, but it'd probably be easier to catch them with the checkuser. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

super force of the dragon

hey i heard solid rumors that those album titles were locked in for those dates, i hope so too cos ULTRA BEATDOWN did not contain enough referencs to MAGIC DRAGONS and pokemon, and not enough mentions of flying eternal flaming hellish mega destiny awsum power swords of justice. the kinda thing i expect from the mighty DragonForce —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.155.53 (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

74.47.1.211

We should do something for this user. He changes Nightwish and Within Temptation genres without consensus. Maybe blocking, or just a warning. Dunno. --Whoever Brings the Night - 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello Angel

Hey Haunted Angel. I really hate that you dont trust me anymore and even though all that evidence says I was guilty. I wasnt. I remember that we were so close and if you will just trust me again, I will be by your side faithgully! Eternal Brit (talk) 05:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

/me waves goodbye EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Hello again THA. I have been trying to figure some things out and just cant seem to on my own. first of all i was wondering how to create userboxes of my own. also, i was wondering how to make a section, such as the one for your userboxes, with a scroll bar on the main page and also a seperate page for it. please inform me of one or both of these things whenever you get a chance. thank you, Chipthief. Chipthief00 (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there; well, off the top of my head, I couldn't explain it to you - the way I made my first userbox was to copy the coding from another user box, and alter the content to suite what I wanted it to display - feel free to copy the coding of any of my user boxes for the similar effect here is an example. The same goes for the scroll bar, I copied the coding from someone elses user page - here is the scroll bar by itself, if you wish to copy the coding for that also. Hope that helps! ≈ The Haunted Angel 09:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. i got the scroll bar down and although i dont have time as of now to create a userbox, i think i get the idea. thanks again. Chipthief00 (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Help a noob please :)

How did you get your name like this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arbocalaviv (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey there - the effect isn't as dynamic as it looks at first. Basically, it's simply changing the font of each letter after another - rather than an actual fade effect. The coding for it is thus -

[[User: The Haunted Angel|<b><font color="#0000DD">Th<font color="#0066FF">e H<font color="#0099FF">au<font color="#00CCFF">nt<font color="#00EEFF">ed </font>A</font>n</font>ge</font>l</font></b>]]

As you can see, the font colour is changed each couple of letters slighty to look like it's fading - so if you wanted it, simply change the first part of the link to your user page, and then change the actual letters in the second part of the link (the bits you are changing the colour of) to you name, however many letters at a time. Just in case you don't know how to change your sig, go to "my preferences" and put the finished sig in the signature box - ensure that the "raw sig" box is ticked. Apart from that, it works exactly how regular coding on Wikipedia does - hope that helps!!! ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Scott Conner's Age

What is the problem with adding Scott Conner's age on the Xasthur page?

The problem was that there was no evidence backing up this statement - if you provide a source, I'll hapilly place it on the page ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

hail satan

if u ever come to cal. theres a job for u in my band on ether instrument...I'm a LaVeyin satanist and i need people like u in my band pst if u r interested my band has contact with lamb of god, phychostick, and suicide silence so if u want in we will take u...PEACE Famt13 (talk) 22:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

hey, Am i in charge of my talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat - removing warnings and such is frowned upon - although you are welcome to archive them if you do not wish them being visible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 10:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

talk page control

First, I could care less about your silly warnings. I am sick of the damn sine bot. The whole 4 tilde thing, when it's obvious enough who signed that a bot can add it, but they still want us to do 4 tildes is indicative of the wiki wasted effort (like the lack of a spell checker).

Also, you didn't answer my question! Is it frowned upon to remove warnings or not allowed!? And how much control do I have over my talk page? Oh and by the way, it's always "archived" in the sense that the corrections can be viewed in history. Now, settle this question FIRST before reverting my talk page again. I'm assuming your lack of a definitive answer, means I control my talk page. If not, let's get that clear first. Then we can revert. But stop the damn reversions on my oage while we are discussing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

More: Oh...and I just looked up the darn policy. Turns out there really isn't one (how typical of wikipedia is this!? ha!) But to the extent there is one, it favors allowing me to wipe my user talk page. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_talk_page So, either I'm basically in the right and you should back off. Or it's open for debate in which case you can keep reverting the damn thing and I'll edit war back and we can get a neutral editor in and I can complain about you and ladi dadi da. Bunch of waste for all of us. P.s. I recall now that there was something besides the sine bot and your scolding that I didn't want public. So I wanted it whiped. So BACK OFF. P.s.s I actually sorta LIKE having the reprimands in pubblic. Gives me a childish pleasure. So don't think I'm trying to hide the hiding. Capisce? If you want to edit out all the other comments and leave your reprimands up, feel free. You'll have to keep the sine bot off my page too. Damn spamming sine bot bugs me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I suggest you keep cool, there's no reason to get unnessarily agitated. I do not believe there is a definite rule in that warnings must stay, but many Wikipedia editors will revert edits so that the warnings are at least there - and no, just because they are in the history, that does not count as an archive. Removing content off your talk page and not archiving it implies you have something to hide, which will diminish your respect on Wikipedia even further than a simple warning. The next point to remember is that the talk page is not in fact yours, it is Wikipedia's, and abuse of it can lead to your loss of using it. Just for the sake of compromise, and to avoid any further trouble on Wikipedia, I suggest you simply archive the warnings, otherwise it could be taken by some people as a lack of decency.
Your attitude in this matter is fast becoming aggressive, and there is no need for it here. Do not ask me to "back off", when things can be discussed calmly, and as adults.
Oh, and Wikipedia policy insists that you sign your posts, even if it is on your own talk page, and especially on other people's, so please do so. Your constant insistence to be defiant will only ever lead to you being blocked. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NO

Read that essay. It is NOT accepted that I have to leave warnings on that page. Or go to the bother of archiving them. And someone has written a policy essay to the effect that removing the warning counts as acknowledging it. And that history IS A RECORD. So if you CAN SHOW A CONSENSUS POLICY that supports your viewpoint, I'll accept it. Otherwise, I will not take your point as directive.

I also note that you have gotten in trouble for multiple reversions and your defense was that you thought other people were getting away with it...think about that for a second...that shows an edit warrior mentality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

One more thing, the issue of the sine bot and me whiping my user talk page are two separate issues. And don't threaten me with blockage for not signing posts, while we are in the middle of debating who controls my talk page. BTW, a debate where written policy supports ME. You have not cited ANY policy to your support. But have just tried acting like a king and saying your word is law. Well, you're wrong on the talk page issue. Read that essay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

As I said, there is no definate policy - and yes, I have read the essay showing that removal of warnings also shows acknowledgment. Very well, if you do wish to remove them, then that is your choice (last time I checked, which admittedly, was over a year ago the consensus was to at least archive them). The more pressing matter I feel, is your attitude towards other Wikipedians - conflicting unnessarially with other people will do nothing but start to diminish your respect, and will eventually lead to the same thing many others I've seen like you end up at. We are a community here, and conflicting with other users always ends the same way.

And if you're truely interest, my edit warring you mentioned was due to an unjustified change in article layout when the consensus was to leave it as it was - but I won't get into that now.

And again, please sign your posts - it's only four tildes, it doesn't hurt to type them. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the issue with the talk page revert (letting me "win"). you have some points on the other stuff. Lete's let it go at that. Hasn't been that much else that I've done lately. Four tildes for you.TCO (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "letting you win" implies that I was right and I allowed you to win, which isn't true, as you were in fact right, whereas I wasn't - but even if I was right, it's not "winning" as that'd imply fighting, and I'd rather keep conflict off Wikipedia altogether. Nonetheless, thank you for your cooperation and understanding in the matter, and for signing your posts. Happy Wikying, hopefully we can put this behind us. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

I thought I was leaving comments on your talk page, not your user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 20:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's quite alright. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Hail Satan

Hi The Haunted Angel. Any chance that your library includes information that would add to the article Hail Satan? Suntag (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Warhammer 40K Project updated

File:W40000 Symbol.png

File:W40000 Symbol.png

The Warhammer 40,000 project page has been updated!

• Assessment tags have been added to the project banner.
• New material, including transwiki instructions and an organizational chart, has been added to the main project page.
• Please help us get the Warhammer 40K project back on track!

Protonk (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Sent with Auto Wiki Browser to all 40K project members.

Hey

Hey Angel. Just checking in with you. Its been nearly two years since we feel out and I am very sorry taht you still think I was evil. The faulty checkuser did that and I would like to appeal to be a free user again. I just cant go on with me thinking that you think I am guilty when I didnt do anything of any nature wrong. I just was framed and mistreated. Please can be sweep it all away and be pals? Reply soon. Your Friend Always ! Brit Always (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

/me waves bye-bye. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Discussion on the "Emo" genre with Coheed and Cambria

Hi i noticed that editing of the COCA page has been disabled for a bit because of the repeated removal of the "Emo" genre. I would like to state that although many articles and newspapers state they are emo, the band does not consider themselves this as they have stated numerous times. As i was reding over the talk page i noticed that it said that the band and the record labels statement on this were not valid because it is considered biased and does not come from a journalistic standpoint. Although this may be true it should not matter because this is how the band views themeselves therefore a journalistic opinion shouldnt matter in this case. I just felt that i should say something because it is always fair to show your reasons for a change first. I look forward to possibly hearing a reply from you or the others in charge of the article.

ChayDX (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Chay

Hey - just to start off with, I've only just noticed about the edit war on the article, mostly because I'm inactive at the moment, at least for the most part. I am strongly against having the emo genre up there, and I was one of the people who kept it from being there before - however, even though I am against it being there, the band themselves can say whatever genre they want, but it doesn't make it so, as it is biased. For example, the band Gallhammer call themselves crust punk, even though they are clearly black/doom metal - the point being that certain journalistic standpoints say otherwise (even though again, I am very much against the genre of emo being up) ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

oh i know i was just putting it out there from a basic musically educated standpoint that a lot of those that say they are emo are completely ignorant. clearly they have no idea what emo is. i will agree that on two or three of the songs they have some underlying and small emo influences but this is not enough to just outright consider them full blown emo. (btw i didnt mean to make it seem i was attacking anyone. i posted on your talk page because you were the first i came to regarding the article.) ChayDX (talk) 18:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)ChayDX

Not at all, I didn't take it as an attack in the slightest - and likewise hope that you didn't take my reply as one. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya... just leaving a nice message to say that I like your profile. If you have msn/aim feel free to add me back, my aim is thearcherian and my msn is ianthearcher@hotmail.com ^^ "cheers" X3 (disregard this message if you do not want to be friends) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.222.239 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Stanley's Cup

OK - here's the exact message I've left Alastairward:

I have no idea why you removed these additions. Here are some explanations:

1) The City Council official is the "Rob Schneider is..." guy - he even has the record player for comic effect.
2) The scene where there's a team of adults playing against a team of kids while savagely beating them up is the rugby scene from "The Meaning of Life."

Unless you can prove me wrong, I'm asking you to stop removing my additions.

So... I'd love to know why it's been removed for the second time, especially when I know it makes sense.

NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't about proving you wrong - what you are typing is pure speculation - you have to prove yourself right before anything else is added. See WP:CITE, WP:OR and WP:V for more information. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Project activity

File:W40000 Symbol.png

This message is a test to check to see if members of the Warhammer 40K Project are still online, active and interested in helping the project. If you are no longer interested in the project all you need to do is...nothing! If you don't respond to this I'll take your name off the list and you'll never here from us again. If you're the proactive type you can remove the name yourself or talk to me and I'll do it.

If you are still interested in helping out the 40K project or otherwise still want to be listed there you can say so in response to this message on your talk page or on mine. Alternately you can add our new userbox ({{User WikiProject Warhammer 40,000}}) to your userpage and I'll take that as a response. The userpage doesn't automatically include people in a category of members yet, but it might in the future.

We've assessed most of the articles in the project on the Version 1.0 assessment scale (the table on the project page should take a few days to update) but we need to push to get the core articles in the project up to GA status. Thanks for all your help. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help the project along. Protonk (talk) 21:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

contempt pages

I do not understand why you removed all the quotations of U.S. code and the U.S. Supreme Court that I pasted in. Self-represented access to courts is vital for democracy 20:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Please link me to the article where I did this, and I shall explain ≈ The Haunted Angel

Thanks...

For your empathy and sentiments. Feel free to email me if you have any trouble or anything else Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Motto of the day

Hello, I notice you're using one of the {{motd}} templates, run by Wikipedia:Motto of the day. You may have noticed that some of the mottos recently have been followed by a date from 2006, or on occasion simply "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". The reason for this is that Motto of the day is in some very serious need of help. Participation in the project, which has never been especially high, has dropped considerably over this past summer, to the point we have had several days where no motto was scheduled to appear at all. Over the past several weeks, I've been the only editor scheduling mottos at all, but there aren't enough comments on some of these mottos to justify their use. If we do not get some help - and soon - your daily mottos will stop. In order for us to continue updating these templates for you, we need your help.

When you get a chance between your normal editing, could you stop by our nominations page and leave a few comments on some of the mottos there, especially those that do not have any comments yet? This works very simply; you read a motto, decide whether or not you like it, and post your opinion just below the motto. That's it - no experience required, just an idea of what you personally like and what you feel reflects Wikipedia and its community. If you do have past experience with the project, then please close some of the older nominations once they've got a decent consensus going. There are directions on the nominations page on how to do this.

If you have any questions, please let me know, or post on the project's talk page. I'm looking forward to reading your comments on the suggested mottos, and any additional suggestions you'd like to make. Until then, happy editing! Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Rage Against The Machine editing

Posting pics of male genitals on a website without a age-restriction filter is actually against teh law here in the USA. I know Rage Against The Machine was trying to make a point, and that this whole thing is about their political views, but Wikipedia is not above the law and needs to remove all pornagraphic images or needs to put an age-restriction filter on this site.

Every state in the USA prevent persons under the age of 17 from viewing adult material, and websites have to have age-restriction software to prevent them from viewing it.Anyway I am editing it back until this site has some sort of age restriction in place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReCreate08 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Before you carry on, let me just point out WP:CENSOR - this has been discussed before, and in short, Wikipedia is not censored, for anyone. There is a disclaimer warning people about possible offensive content, so the picture will not be removed. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If RATM's only form of activism involves their dicks hanging out then they should not be considered activist.As I said before this picture violates the laws of the USA but it also damages the eyes of children who view this.So either put a age-restriction filter on or remove this pornographic images off this site.People who check out this page want to check out their fav band not see a group of men naked.Kids that come to this site are not warned nor does it have a age-restriction filter so its illegal. unsigned comment added by ReCreate08 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 11 october 2008 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site - there is a disclaimer at the bottom of every page, not to mention the fact that Wikipedia is not censored, for anyone. Again, this is not pornography, as it is not sexual in any way. This has been discussed many times in the past, and so the picture will not be removed -- if you continue to remove the picture, you will be blocked for vandalism. Also, please do not bring the subject of law into the discussion, as per WP:NLT. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Spacing on The Godfather

Hi. You asked on The Godfather about the purpose of the spacing on that article. It's there to correct a problem with Internet Explorer's rendering of the page. Without it the lede section butts right up against the table of contents, or the external links against the navboxes.

Can you tell me what browser you're using? I'd like to check it out and see what you're seeing. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 19:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see - apologies for removing it then - I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.16, and it all looks fine with or without the space there for me (well, I personally though it looked a tad ugly with the space, which was why I removed it, as I do with most articles when I see excess space) ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I do the same thing, reduce whitespace whereever I can. This spacing is one of the very few instances where I actually think it's advantagious to have a little more space. In any case, I'll take a look at it with my copy of Firefox. Ed Fitzgerald ^{t / c} 20:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

A State of Trance / Alexander Vince

A State Of Trance (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Alexander Vince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This user,as you have seen, is fairly problematic and difficult to work with. I just don't think he is a team player. It isn't specifically required of editors to work well with others, but it is encouraged. This is, after all, a community project. My conflicts with this editor have been during the times that he operates as Alexander Vince and as A State of Trance. Now that there are several editors noticing the difficult behavior it may be worth pursuing this so that an administrator can see the disturbances. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 22:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for brining this to my attention - I wasn't totally sure on the sock puppetry claims - I am writing a message to AN/I as we speak, I'll let you know when it's up, mate. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:04, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to have a say on this new report: WP:Suspected_sock_puppets/A_State_Of_Trance E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 06:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Evenin' Haunted!

How's tricks? Just trying to make clear wherever possible that Babalon is the right spelling in the Cradle / Crowley case. Someone redirected the DVD's page. I guess I could actually write a sentence or two about it. :-p Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Rage Against the machine picture

The last picture on the rage site I think should be deleted because it is pornografic why is itvandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slacker1717 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not pornographic. Nudity is not pornography, as it's not being sexually explicit. And it's vandalism because you ignored a comment that was written, and even chose to delete that as well. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Charles Hedger does not play on the new Cradle of Filth record, and as such will not be credited in the booklet. I shall be re-removing his name from that page immediately. Feel free to check up this information on the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.99.99 (talk) 19:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey; if you can provide a reliable source that proves Charles isn't on the record, then I'll gladly allow his name being taken down and will also take the courtesy of removing the warning I gave you ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of traps in the Saw film series

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of traps in the Saw film series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (2nd nomination). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? CyberGhostface (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Genre

Hi. Could you explain to me your recent removals Genre in Bands' info boxes? Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey; The field in question has been removed. See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Time to remove genre section on info box? ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent news! Just a suggestion; you might want to link to that page on your edit summaries. I can't count the number of dumb edit wars I've seen over these and it would be a pity of your edits were mistaken as another disputed genre tussle. Thanks for the info, made my day. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just occurred to me as I got my second question over my removal of the genres >.<" But will do so onwards. Have a good day, mate ≈ The Haunted Angel

Re: Metallica

Well that is good news. I've seen so many edit wars over genres I could be sick. Let's hope it actually makes a difference. Rehevkor ✉ 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saw October 2008 Newsletter

The WikiProject Saw Newsletter Issue IV - October 2008
Member news The project has currently 29 members.	From the Members Welcome to the fourth issue of the WikiProject Saw's newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do. Another year, and another Saw. The penultimate(?) entry to the series, Saw V, will becoming out in less than two weeks. We would encourage all members to get more involved and if you are wondering what with, please ask. CyberGhostface 18:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Pages Needing Cleanup List of traps in the Saw film series: This article should be improved if it is to survive deletion. Look for more below.
Monthly Collaboration Perhaps for the remainder of this month (and the next couple of ones) we can work on Saw V's article. I have a feeling once the film comes out the page will be filled to the brim with information, a lot of which could be trimmed. The other film articles could use some work as well.
Newsletter Challange Important Right now the biggest challenge is to save List of traps in the Saw film series from deletion. There are two things that can be done. First you can go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of traps in the Saw film series (3rd nomination) and voice your argument as to why it should be kept. Important: read over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Saying stuff like "Saw rules, it should be kept" will not help at all. Just as important: improving the article so it has a fighting chance. I.E. Focus less on plot of the films but more "real world" information...I.E. the traps' impact on popular culture, reception they may have received, cited comparisions and allusions to actual devices (just pulling comparisions out of thin air would be original research. Try to make the character articles more encyclopedic by making them less in-universe. See Jigsaw and Amanda's articles for guidance. Also see Jason Voorhees, which is a featured article. (Obviously there is more information on Jason available than the Saw characters, but it is worth looking at to see what's considered the best of the best.) Because of the nature of the series, poorly written articles could be considered 'deletion-bait' and 'cruft'...the better written the articles, the less likely this would happen. Some of the plot articles seem to be overtly long. Without bowdlerizing them, maybe we could try to make them a bit shorter and concise. Try to invite more members to this project. If you know any Saw fans who are good with computers, invite them to Wikipedia. The more the merrier.

--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Comma

But it looks better when there's a comma.--Nazzzz (talk) 12:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And that's your opinion - as there is no rule, the articles have all been left as they were originally until a band infobox consensus is reached - which is hasn't yet. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)