User talk:Danteferno

Attention!

If you have inquiries or disagreements about my edits, please only use this board to direct me to the discussion area for said article. Thank you.

Danteferno 11:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support of the mall goth article, it's been under a rather sustained attack by people who seem to think wikipedia needs to conform to there own standards of notability. Its not my article but it really upsets me the way most of the administration think that making a comprehensive encyclopedia involves deleting 100's of articles.--Pypex 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Gothic metal

I've scaled back User:Leyasu's recent edits, correcting for NPOV, copyediting extensively, and so on. You might want to check my corrections for factual accuracy. For the sake of (hopefully) not offending Leyasu I don't want to remove his edits entirely (he'd probably just revert either one of us anyway; a lot of new users think they own their articles - see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles), but they did need some work. --Idont Havaname 01:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I just saw your post on the talk page, and I'm about to reply there. In general I agree with what you said, but please keep civility and no personal attacks in mind. Things between you and Leyasu could get ugly if you don't. (I have a project for a computer science class due this weekend, so provided I'm not procrastinating too much, I will spend the next few days finishing that up. If you don't see me around here much this weekend, that's why; I'll be back to my usual editing activities in a few days.) --Idont Havaname 02:46, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, please remember to follow the three-revert rule, which says not to revert an article more than 3 times in a 24-hour period. I've noticed that you've gotten close to breaking it several days in a row, and breaking that results in being blocked for 24 hours. --Idont Havaname 03:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I said the book is being published, how can i cite something that isnt out yet? Also, you overlook yours says nothing about what Gothic Metal is, and cites WEBSITES admittedly CLAIMING, that what they have put is SPECULATION and ORIGINAL RESEARCH. Thats not proof, thats guessing. ~~Leyasu

I didn't misplace the verify tag. Altho I hadn't read the /temp article. It mostly resolves to the doom metal link, which I consider rather inaccurate. Doom metal is only rather loosely related to gothic metal and paradise lost are of called gothic because their second album is titled Gothic and they use female vocals in one song. Anyway, there may have been some crossinfluence in these genres, but not to the amount stated in the article. Spearhead 22:42, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I replaced it as you suggested. I agree on the influence PL had on gothic metal bands as they were one of the first to use female vocals on their album. Nevertheless I disagree with labelling them as gothic metal.Spearhead 23:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Gothic Metal Reverts

Metal Archives has actually had over 900 cases of bands asking to be taken off, including my own. They actually put out a statement saying, 'If you dont want us listing you where we want you to be. Stop making music'. And UltimateMetal has also been discredited by the bands and their fans. Your citing sites that claim speculation and assumption. You arent actually citing anything helpfull what so ever except repeating someone elses assumptions. ~~Leyasu

In a fashion, you are wrong. Not because your stupid or any such thing, but your citing sources that are claiming speculation as ive already mention. Im also having problems citing the whole damn scene. What do you want me to do? Go out and interview everyband and fan around the world? ~~Leyasu

Gothic Metal Revision

Posted on Gothic Metal discussion board a revised version of the article. I also wrote the intentions for doing so at that part. Please look into it and give your constructive critique on things that can be improved as detailed at the revision. Thank you. ~~Leyasu

Children of Bodom Peer Review request

Hello, Danteferno. I am currently attempting to get an article on a metal band to featured status, and a first effort I have put the article on Children of Bodom (which has been my project for quite a while) up for Peer Review. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Children of Bodom. Any feedback you might have is appreciated. Regards, --Sn0wflake 03:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nu metal

Bah, I hit the wrong button in my browser, and left a message here instead of somewhere else. I have since removed this as entirely irrelevant. Carry on, good wiki-er! :) --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 19:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Disputes and gothic metal

That's quite a lot to tackle in one message. :-)

I'd say it's legitimately a dispute; see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. However, I strongly recommend against an WP:RfC or WP:RfAr if possible; I do think Leyasu is acting in good faith, and he's getting better at NPOV. (That, and RfC and RfAr carry somewhat of a stigma when you're dealing with other editors in the future. These concerns come up in oppose votes on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship quite often, for example.) I've been trying to provide a third opinion for you and Leyasu whenever I can find the time. (I have a lot of articles that I'm watching, plus my studies, which take a lot of editing time away from me.)

I had a similar dispute in September over Asian fetish, an article I had found in passing. I actually started that dispute. The version of the article at that time was an unsourced, highly POV rant, written mainly by an anon. So I brought it up on the talk page for the article, reworded one section of the article to something more NPOV... it turned into quite a war - over one section! (I wasn't even touching the rest of the article.) After that, there was a revert war over whether or not the NPOV template should have been there (completely defying logic - if people are disagreeing over whether or not the article is neutral, then the template should be there!). I listed it briefly at Wikipedia:Third opinion, and several people joined the discussion. The article was listed later on Wikipedia:Article Improvement Drive, and although it didn't become Collaboration of the Week, at least quite a few editors knew the article was there, and they could take it from there. The dispute still flares up occasionally, though among different editors now (I continue to keep the page on my watchlist so that I can remind new editors of our policies, and to hopefully calm things down).

I don't want you (or me) to kick Leyasu out of the discussion; his comments and changes, when made in good faith (we should always assume that), should be welcomed, although all editors to a page should be checking that page's factual accuracy, regardless of who's editing it. The rule in the edit box goes for all of us: "If you don't want your writing to be edited ... by others, do not submit it."

In answer to your concerns about the Gothic metal/Temp revision itself, I've responded on the Gothic metal talk page, so that everyone can see my suggestions and comment about them. --Idont Havaname 04:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I do like your Pulp Fiction comparisons. :-D Proving that something didn't happen is somewhat hard; for example, in the case of lawsuits, bands might not report them if they did not receive much press for it because it would hurt the reputation/sales of the bands. About Leyasu's posting about you on my talk page, where he says, "stop arguing that your writing is always right, when it is in FACT wrong"... stuff like this is why I'm often quite quick to bring up WP:CITE.

Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of time to go through a lot of websites further. Being a computer science major, spare time is hard to come by for me (also, I'm in the last couple of weeks of the semester now; after finals, I'll be away from the site for about a week because I'll be visiting family).

I don't mind if you and Leyasu are leaving messages on my talk page; it's always open. However, if you and he are coming there to argue with each other, then my talk page isn't the place for it. If you want to talk to another editor, use their talk page; if you want to discuss article content, the article's talk page is probably the best place for that. (I've notified Leyasu about this too.)

About trolling, I still don't think he's a troll per se. You might want to read m:Controversial contributors and other pages in m:Category:Conflicts. (Meta is a great resource, and I'm starting to read it more.)

Hope this helps.

--Idont Havaname 23:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Problem?

I dont have a problem with you. I have a problem with you acting meglomanical and reverting any major edit to any articles you worked on. And i have a problem with you acting childish and playing silly games such as 'Tit-for-tat spite' over the revision to the Gothic Metal article.

Reason i changed it, like im working on several revisions, is because what is already there is wrong. Now i know your fond of creating articles with no valuable content what so ever, or just seemingly like to create articles so you can do the whole 'Mommy, mommy look what i did' thing to your friends.

I was respectfull enough to try to keep as much of your wording as possible, as i am most everyones edits. Most of the conflicts i get into, are normally with people who use similar arguments to you (Call everyone who disagrees a straw man, make personal attacks like wildfire, completely disrupt Wikipedia to prove your point, meglomanical, the list goes on...).

Most of my arguments are fact, however most of the editors ive come up in confrontation with, dont have any bad blood between us. Whatever my problems with other editors, when they occur, is free for you to see, but is not free for you to dictate, boast, or otherwise 'stir the pot' about. Again, acting childish to prove a point.

Also, such claims that everything i revert is POV. Sorry, but i have done a lot of edits to other articles, and ive grown a fondness for editing peoples added submissions to a page. Why? Simple, sometimes people make good editions, that arent very NPOV. So i learned how to type more NPOV better, so i do. The obly problem is, i also deal in Factual Accuracy and what things are, rather than trying to redefine everything or coin new terms, because i dont like what they already are.

Also, on the last batch of reverts you made, and comments on what i was doing, it was blatantly obvious you were doing what could be considered 'harrasment'. How? Well, going through my user contribution page and reverting and commenting against everything i posted for the last few days is deemable as harrasment, especially when your arguments make snide comments and personal attacks.

Basically, if you dislike an edit i make, ask me about it. If you go around reverting me left, right, and center, im going to quite promptly tell you to go fuck yourself. If you start commiting childish acts of spite and getting meglomanical, im going to tell you so. If you then cant deal with it, thats your problem. Im not patient in waiting for people to grow up and accept that people arent always going to throw roses at the end of a show. If you have a problem with my edits, thats fine, but dont go around reverting facts simply because you didnt write them. If it needs expanding, mention it and ill put it on my To-Do List. If not, then to be blunt, grow the fuck up already. Leyasu 05:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont call everyone meglomanical. Ive called two users meglomanical, who act like it, one being yourself. Also, the admin was mediating an argument between three users, one of which i was, on another article, that other admins were also mediating. Leyasu 13:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Templates on the gothic metal page.

And removing those tags without bringing it up to discussion constitutes as vandalism. Danteferno 14:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What I was trying to say, is that there were NO discussion. The revision has been live for definitely more than two weeks, and the last edit on the talk page at the time you tagged the article was in fact made by me on January 6. I expect a reasonable explanation on the talk page instead of coming out of nowhere asking for a complete rewrite and rephrase and what not. That is all I'm asking, please, understand that. -- parasti 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In reply to "No Discussion" does not equal Concensus. I might have expressed myself not well enough, my apologies for that. Discussion is a prerequisite to consensus. From a certain point of view, actually having the revision up in the main article was consensus, since no one seemed to have any problem with it whatsoever. Considering this, it would be best to explaing on the talk page, what do you consider to be factually incorrect, why do you consider it to be incorrect, and what are your suggestions for improving the article. Don't expect anyone to read through all of the archive pages to find out what exactly were you talking about a month or two ago. And only after that it makes sense tagging the article; feel free to do it then. -- parasti 00:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)