Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions.
Thanks for that, after Lombardo I'll work on Show No Mercy which i expanded yesterday then King and possibly God hates us all (kind of recent so should be able to find a decent amount of stuff), M3tal H3ad 02:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Collaboration would be nice :), regarding reign in blood i can't find the studio and need members comments during the recording process, how long it took and stuff - that kind of info is scarce. I don't think there's enough editors to better articles on the big four, we do Slayer, the creator does Megadeth, Anthrax has 0 references, Metallica is alright but far from GA. M3tal H3ad 02:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think i could get Angel of Death (song) to FA, and was hoping you could help me out, do you see any information missing that would fail as comprehensive? Also on the peer-review "Article doesn't deal with notable cover versions of the track, and how these covers were critically recieved." I know its been covered by Cradle of Filth and one or two other bands but can't find any reliable references - just download sites. M3tal H3ad 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, still lots more to go. Also i can't find any information about the song being released as a single (no proper picture and track listing), should i just change it to song?. M3tal H3ad 08:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. This month sure went quick hehe, i also sent a few flickr e-mails around asking for users to license their pictures under a CC-SA license, got one for Hanneman, Slayer (its up) but i just found out how to license a single picture today so they'll be up and licensed soon, and i asked someone for Bostaph's one. M3tal H3ad 05:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let you know i expanded Hell Awaits to start class. M3tal H3ad 10:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that section is the busiest, three articles there one day and in five days there was 12, I'll review other articles around Slayer so someone will look at your ones sooner. M3tal H3ad 10:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Big Four
1. I'm totaly keeping in mind the Metal Genre Wikiproject. I haven't had a change to really develop an opinion of it. Why are you not in favor of it, is it too broad, or the people in it are not serious?
2.I would like there to be more eyes on the Big Four and I think that the Metal Wikiproject's scope is too big. I would like the Slayer Wikiproject to merge with the Big Four (there are only several members anyway) and become part of a bigger, more serious, editing audience. Thank You for you concern and opinions!!! Adumbvoget 06:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A little something in return...
I don't like to sound mercenary, but I was wondering if you could do me a favour. I'm thinking about nominating Isis for GA; I'm not asking you to completely review it, but I understand you take part in these reviews and am curious as to whether a vet like you thinks it'd be a wise nomination. If you've not got time (I can see you're doing a shitload of Slayer stuff at the moment), don't worry. Thanks in advance. Seegoon 18:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your response - I'll definitely take all you said on board... and I'd prefer to be scrutinised by a picky reviewer than a lax one. As for Slayer, I'll give it a once-over at some point tomorrow. I remember reviewing it at PR a little while back, and it definitely had sufficient content in my eyes. As for the prose, I'll be anal as hell about it. Are you pushing for eventual FA with it? Seegoon 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure thing. Makes little to no difference anyway. Seegoon 00:16, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are my thoughts:
"Like Slayer's two previous albums, all rhythm tracks on Christ Illusion were laid down by King." - "rhythm" is ambiguous. Rhythm, i.e. backing guitar, bass, drums? I'm a little confused.
""a non-profit corporation in the State of Wyoming,"" - I'd put the comma outside the quotation marks, but that's personal preference.
There's a possibility that the use of the phrase "conservative retailers" will appear NPOV to some FAC reviewers. You'd know more about that than me.
Overall, the prose is very sound. The lead is particularly concise and logical. I don't see any glaring flaws here; good luck. Seegoon 16:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the Rubin bit, it sounded OK to me. As for "Slayer came under fire due to several concerns surrounding Christ Illusion", I wouldn't describe it as "redundant", if that's what Ceoil did. Maybe he objected to using "Slayer" and "Christ Illusion", and felt you could use a pronoun in their stead. Either way, I personally am totally satisfied with it. Glancing over the featured article criteria, which I am only vaguely familiar with, I don't see any stumbling blocks for you. I guess you'll just have to take the plunge! Seegoon 02:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1c
If none of the keep votes state the reasons why the article does not fail 1c, and that's the concern addressed, then they cannot be counted. FAR reviews articles against the featured article criteria; it is not a room to determine what those criteria mean, so those keep votes are obsolete unless they prove that the article passes 1c. — Deckiller 23:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked it. But you need to paste the last thing I've posted. Check again [[Fallen nomiation. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know but I really disagree with most of the reasons stated. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I really hope that happens. If not, the only thing I and other contributors can do is to keep working and working to see if we can get the article to GA status (like Evanescence).. Armando.Otalk • Ev 22:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[reply]
No reason
There is no real reson to write this, except to say hello, and also to say it's nice to see your name on the GAR pages (I'm on there wih Mal Evans at the moment). All the best. ThE bEaTLeS aka andreasegde 18:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kiarostami
Dear LuciferMorgan!
I noticed that you review FA candidates. Just in case you have time for review:
Hi there, I've added webcite templates to the three web references. If you have any other comments, they would be very welcome. TimVickers 20:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen that done, I think the reference would be complete without the link, but the PubMed link is added just for the reader's convenience. By the way, I have stolen your talk page formatting, and it looks very nice indeed. Thank you. TimVickers 00:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Monthly Challenge: Find 5 editors to LGBT articles and invite them to the project! Check out our recruitment tips if you need them. Good luck!
Project News
With such rapid development of the project, it was decided that a Coordinator was needed to ensure all the fiddly maintenence was kept up. Elections were held and Dev920 (talk·contribs) has been elected Coordinator for the next three months. She said "I am honoured and proud to be at the helm of such a fantastic WikiProject and look forward to our future". Congratulations Dev!
The assessment system continues to be a great success, we have tagged over 5200 articles! Please tag any LGBT related articles you come across by adding {{LGBTProject | class=}} to the talkpage. Please see the Assessment Department for how to assess an article according to the grading system.
Jumpaclass is proving to be quite successful! The winner at the end of the year gets to pick the January collaboration, so sign up and get going! Or challenge another user to see how far you can jump a stub!
A new Community department has been set up to foster community amongst our members. It mostly acts as other WikiProjects' Outreach department, but also has a Quilt to which every member is entitled to add a square containing anything of their choice.
The peer review is not getting much custom - please notice you can cross-list other peer reviews from different projects that also fall within our scope.
Many people still seem to be unaware that the Deletion sorting subpage exists for XfDs to be listed: please use and watch that page instead of issuing "alerts" for ordinary AfDs on the project talkpage.
WP:FILM has a current drive to give every film article an infobox. WP:LGBT successfully gave all 105 LGBT infoboxless films infoboxes, so a big thank you to everyone who participated.
A new template, LGBT-footer, has been created for articles which are becoming to cluttered with infoboxes. Thanks to WJBscribe and SatyrTN for creating it.
A very basic resources page has been started. Please add to it as you come across useful sites.
A promotional poster for the project has been created: http://wplgbt.tripod.com/Wikipedianeedsyou.doc (you have to directly cut and paste the url, or it won't let you download it). Please distribute anywhere and everywhere you desire, such as gay libraries, cybercafes, community centres and so on. Also, please let Dev920 know where you have put it up, so she can keep track of our coverage.
An LGBT Publications Taskforce has been proposed. Please sign up here if you are interested in being involved.
An LGBT WikiProject has been set up on the Spanish Wikipedia! Set up by Raystorm, it has already gained six members and is developing an assessment system. If you speak any Spanish, please consider going up and lending a hand if you can!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
Heavy metal music FAR
Was almost tempted to leave a Messages left at LuciferMorgan comment here ;). I can add sound files and work on Black and Doom metal subsections. Any suggestions re files? Ceoil 23:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
About Pmanderson singling you out: try not to worry about it. I've concluded that some people restrict their statements-about-content to particular users because they worry that their points don't hold up on their own. For example, if an article clearly does not pass 1c, then it is much easier to complain that a single user's 1c demands are groundless than to say the same of all such demands. If you read such statements as admitting weakness, then they're much easier to ignore. Melchoir 21:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway… did you want to comment on the new version and/or change your !vote? Melchoir 03:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unspecified source for Image:H. P. Lovecraft.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:H. P. Lovecraft.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, are you saying that this image was taken by H.P. Lovecraft himself? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, yes. Published photographs enter the public domain after 70 years after the death of the photographer, not the subject. (this page is an excellent resource for determining copyright status) I think that this photograph of Lovecraft might still be used, but it's going to require a rationale for fair use. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the image was taken prior to 1923, it is likely in the public domain. If it was taken between 1923 and 1963, it is in the public domain if the pohotographer published it without a copyright notice, or if the copyright was subsequently not renewed. Without knowing source details, such as the photographer or date of publication, copyright status is difficult to determine. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assessment from an article page
Thank you for helping out with the Biography assessment drive. Good news. Outriggr recently designed a script that will cut your biography assessment time down by about ten fold (what took ten hours now may only take one hour with Outriggr's script). For more information, please see the 'assessment from article page' discussion. -- Jreferee 20:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article Still Reigning you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Still Reigning for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a review. Tellyaddict 23:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems the HMM Wikiproject is reviewing good articles now, i've nominated it for GA/R hereM3tal H3ad 00:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the template citing page. I thought that everything was cited correctly, No? Get back to me on my talk page please. Ty. -- Happyme22 03:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'll try doing that. You've been a big help. Happyme22 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
God hates us all
Edit away, I'm just randomly putting in sentences with all the info i can gather and will combine them all later. M3tal H3ad 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the Angel of Death GA review (only decent review a Slayer article has got) the user suggested somewhat a music and structure section. I started it and can be found here would appreciate if you could take a look. M3tal H3ad 06:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kneale FAC
Well there are no actual objections so far, anyway. So that's a positive. I'm more than prepared to act on specific criticisms, but thus far there haven't really been any, just general comments. We shall see how it goes, anyway. Angmering 19:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Emailed you two articles. I think one of them calls the two main guys of Slayer "the Lennon and McCartney of thrash metal" or something similar. I just glanced at them, didn't read carefully. Hope they help. --Ling.Nut 11:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typo
Thanks for correcting that! — Deckiller 02:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still Reigning
Hi there, I'd appreciate it if you would not make comments on User talk pages (User:Michaelas10) about my reviews of this article, I found them to be quite offensive as you were saying they were lame. I'd appreciate it if in the future you could refrain from this kind of thing and please try to remain civil. Thanks and I'm sure your intentions were good! Regards - Tellyaddict 22:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The truth hurts i guess. Your review was lame all your "reasons" for failing the article were crap. You didn't say any criteria it failed, or make any valid points. I suggest you read the GA criteria and know what you're doing before reviewing an article, hellooo Lucifer btw :D M3tal H3ad 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CIVIL has been quoted to me a few times, but I prefer not to sugarcoat my opinions that's all. Hi Metalhead btw :D LuciferMorgan 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slayer Discography
I think you mentioned somewhere it could become a featured list. I was wondering how it could become one, like whats required, what needs to be added etc etc. If it wasn't you sorry to bother you. M3tal H3ad 05:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incase you forgot :) M3tal H3ad 11:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, remove the "Label" column and write a paragraph about the label at the top of the label section.
Remove the peak, certification, release date columns, and write a paragraph about the album with those things and a bit more info?
Move the singles, and other appearances to an article called something else
So it's basically a picture of the cover and a short description with the albums split into their label sections? M3tal H3ad 09:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's featured :) Congrats. — Deckiller 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats x 2, very nice work :) M3tal H3ad 06:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, good work! Angmering 15:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent mate. Didn't know you had an FAC running. Don't forget to put the featured star on the article and please, folks, leave it for Lucifer to do! He should have the honour of placing the tag :) --kingboyk 16:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone, and thanks for all those who helped in bringing the article to FAC. In reply to Kingboyk (congrats on KLF being main page btw), nope I didn't inform people of the FAC as I thought it may be seen as trying to encourage support for the article - I wouldn't want to be seen doing that! So yeah, it feels kinda cool to have my first FA (which all you have already had the honour of). It makes me feel like I know what I'm speaking of when reviewing others articles now :) LuciferMorgan 20:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's well a deserved feeling, I'm sure ;) Ceoil 21:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good man. The first one is the hardest, I think, so keep em coming won't you. --kingboyk 23:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully. Sometimes I find certain editors detrimental when trying to improve an article - the Metal articles have a bad habit of having people who protect them and revert good edits, keeping the cruft in. Right now I'm looking at getting "Eyes of the Insane" to GA (currently at peer review, so feel free to take a look. LuciferMorgan 23:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WBFAN corrections
Hi - Thanks for making the corrections to WP:WBFAN[1][2], however like it says in the comment the list is automatically generated from the lists at (for example) Wikipedia:Featured articles nominated in 2004. I've updated the 2004 and 2006 lists so your corrections won't be undone the next time the WBFAN page is regenerated. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, LuciferMorgan, as always. andreasegde 21:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Removing links per..."
Hey. I noticed you have been removing external links to Encyclopaedia Metallum and Rockdetector "per Wikipedia:Verifiability". However, WP:V was not the external links guideline, as that is Wikipedia:External links. I wrote "was", because WP:V has recently been superseded by Wikipedia:Attribution. If links to websites that contain user-submitted content were not allowed, you should put {{Discogs artist}}, {{Last.fm}}, {{Metallum}}, et cetera, to Tfd. But as far as I know, WP:EL does not prevent from linking to them. Also, Slayer references from Rockdetector 15 times and it was promoted to FA, so if you consider this website a poor source you should probably start from that article. Thanks, Prolog 12:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Of course, I agree that Encyclopaedia Metallum is far from a good source, but information on bands' official websites should not always be considered reliable either. It's great that WP:HMM finally has the assessment department, so thanks for your work with it. I've seen your assessments pop up on my watchlist, and I hope I have some time to help out with that. The high number of mediocre stubs is probably due to many things; articles are often created by new users and/or non-native English speakers, lack of reliable sources and enough non-trivial coverage for non-mainstream bands, very different interests in bands and genres, et cetera. I know I as a non-native English speaker do not have the best prose in this language, so it makes more sense to concentrate on stub/start class articles. Christ Illusion is very impressive indeed. I've only done one very large expansion, but what made me gave up on Beherit and GA was the lack of reliable information available. Still, there are dozens of metal bands that have more than enough coverage, so there definitely is work to be done. Prolog 17:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links
Hi, my best guess is WP:EL or the Metal WikiProject, since it's usually a case by case basis by those familiar with the topic. — Deckiller 23:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
License tagging for Image:March 2006 Texas Monthly.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:March 2006 Texas Monthly.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Backpacking
Hi, I saw that you seem to be editing this sort of thing, glad to have you aboard. Please sign your name on the project page if you'd like to officially join, and add the category Category:Members of WikiProject Backpacking or the user box to your user page. Thanks again!
-Leif902 19:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're invited to be a part of WikiProject Backpacking, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to backpacking. To accept this invitation, click here!
Hmm??? LuciferMorgan 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Backpacking? In an enyclopedia? Can't see there being many articles. (BTW, outside N America backpacking means international travel on a shoestring budget). --kingboyk 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd why I got invited... all I did was make an FAR notification. LuciferMorgan 14:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How's the backpacking Lucifer :) M3tal H3ad 08:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to keep bumping into each other on the review page! Good luck with yours, as always. andreasegde 19:52, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eyes of the Insane
The article looks good to me, I didn't see any problems with it at all. I would pass it but I'm trying to finish off the February and early March nominees, and don't want people to get upset with reviewing later articles. Good job so far, and I hope it does make FA. --Nehrams2020 00:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heya, long time no chat. Today is the last weekday of spring break. I've been puttering around on Wikipedia a little bit recently, but that will probably end again after today or perhaps this weekend.
How have you been? Are you a lone voice at FAR? How is your attitude toward Wikipedia holding up? Etc. Later, --Ling.Nut 20:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slayer FACs
Hey, I see on Metalheads talk you are thinking of bringing South of Heaven to GA. My openion is that both "Eyes of the Insane" and "Angel of Death" are close to FA standard, lets work on those, and then bring SOH forward. Ceoil 18:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the fact that "Eyes of the Insane" is a recent release as a problem. To be honest, is much more going to be written about the song? ;) Re: Jihad, would be happy to take a look. Ceoil 18:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't read the metal press anymore, so I'm unlikely to add content. Outside of the beatles articles there is little precedent for FAs on indivdual songs, but seeing as both these articles are comprehensive in that, well what else do you say, I would favour FAC, for both. Ceoil 19:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Ceoil 19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, although its unlikely to be an issue. Note however that I signed up to the Slayer project last week, so my contributions are no longer favours. You and Metalhead are doing great work, and I'm happy to help out when I can. Ceoil 21:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Lucifer, I have a large mp3 collection, any other files you want added, just ask. Ceoil 21:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tenacious D
Thanks for the feedback about the song samples. I changed em and made them both 15s long. Would you consider changing your oppose vote? Tenacious D Fan (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Christ Illusion
I just copied and pasted the lead, re-worded it slightly, changed a few minor things and Deckiller was kind enough to give it a ce. I removed the songs as they would always be stubs, and i agree with you on the big 4 project, much like the trivium and gwar one. M3tal H3ad 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on SOH btw, it's ready for GA i think - the back cover needs a source though. M3tal H3ad 08:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated it for FAC, gave it a ce and changed the sample to 28 seconds, thanks for that. M3tal H3ad 08:05, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DYK
On 19 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jihad (song), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.
That's okay - thanks. I was going by the size of the Justified and Ancient DYK entry, but I was fully prepared to trim if required. :) --Vinoir 18:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heavy metal FAC
Can you do something towards expanding the thrash section of the article? thanks. Its a bit underdeveloped at the moment. Ceoil 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Michaelas10's RfA
Hi LuciferMorgan! Noticed you supported the RfA, but placed your support in the neutral section. Could you fix that up? Otherwise the bot which maintains the RfA tally doesn't catch it. Also, instead of using a * in front, which gives you a bullet point, you should use a #, which puts your comment into the numbered list. Thanks :) – Rianaঋ 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stub removal and categorization
Every article should always be in a category. So if you remove an article from a category, you should make sure that there is a remaining category or add it to one. You removed a stub tag from Abysmal Crucifix which had the effect of removing its last category and leaving it uncategorized. Please be more careful in the future. I put it into Category:American heavy metal musical groups. I hope that that is the correct category for it. JRSpriggs 06:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bal-Sagoth
OK, since there are other musical groups that have WPBiography templates, I gave the article a rating. Personally, though, I'm comming out against the whole idea of including musical groups in a biography project. Biographies are about individuals - not groups, companies or other collectives. The article got a weak B. It is in dire need of references, but it's well written and structured. - Duribald 10:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Slayer Discography
Took awhile but i formatted the albums and DVD's, should i do now, and thanks for the AOD references :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 10:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I think I'm done, i re-uploaded all the images to under 300x300 to meet fair use, added rationales, source, added some paragraphs, added live albums. I do have two questions though, if the album didn't chart or has no certification should i just put N/A or leave it blank? Should i add a brief paragraph for every album, problem with this is i don't know what to write about. Thanks for your help, it looks awesome now. :) M3tal H3ad 12:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3tal H3ad (talk • contribs) 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
A question - Won't people object because of the "no pictures in discography's" crap (although all dicussion about it is in the band article not the discography article) - And what would i write for these intros :O. M3tal H3ad 11:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is a list of soundtrack appearances, with references good enough? or just unique songs in the old list? M3tal H3ad 12:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Last push for the Biography Assessment Drive
We've done great work so far on the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, reducing the 135,345 backlog by 38,626 to 96,719 as of March 20, 2007. We have only 6,720 more to go to get below 90,000. That would be outstanding and any extra effort that you can offer in these last few days of the drive (which ends March 24, 2007) would be much appreciated. If you haven't already, you may want to load Outriggr's assessment script in your monobook.js. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page. -- Jreferee 23:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi we have been doing extensive work over at Mayan languages: the article has been thoroughly copyedited (also for prose-style), reformatted and referenced. I hope you will have a second look at it and that it will causre you to reconsider your stance in ita FA-nomination.·Maunus··ƛ· 09:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look and still stand by my objection, though congratulations on partially addressing my concerns. LuciferMorgan 23:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, you recently rated this article as 'start' class. I honestly can't see what it is lacking- there is discussion of the band's history, the history of its sole member, a look at its releases, a look at notable events involving this band and an in-depth discussion of musical style. What is there that could be added? This isn't a criticism of your assessment, this is a request for reccomendations on how to improve it! J Milburn 20:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input. I realise that it is far too short, but it is hard to find much on the band. The link you gave me cannot be used as a source, the fact it is hosted on geocities and not, as far as I can see, 'official' to anyone (please correct me if I am wrong) means that it would be counted as unreliable. However, I have found this, which would be counted as reliable, and is bursting with info! I will add anything relevent from that, and have a look for a few others. Thanks for the input, I'll drop you a line when I have it up to a better standard. J Milburn 21:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have seriously expanded it. Think you could give me some feedback? J Milburn 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the input. The Desolate North section will need some work, I need to seperate the general information on the music of the band from the section specifically talking about the album. I don't understand what you mean by Right now it seems like a generalised description of the music as opposed to a description of the writing. So could you please clarify that for me? I will expand the infobox a little, if I can. I'll also work on the POV issue, and I have information on the recording of the album, I'll add that in too. I prefer working on obscure bands, to be honest, but if there is anything in particular that you think you could do with another pair of eyes on, I would be more than happy to help. J Milburn 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, there are no more interviews. Since starting to write the article, I have been contacted by Tanner Anderson, and, after an e-mail to the record label, I realised it was him. He has been very helpful indeed, but told me that there were only the two interviews available, one of which is unreliable. Shame, really. I have an abundance of reviews, but not much else. I'll get in contact with those other editors later today, thanks ever so much for your help. Feel free to call on me if you need anything. J Milburn 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't want my last message to you to be wrong- it seems that there was another interview. Showed me. Happy editing! J Milburn 17:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I say, I am in contact with Tanner, and he seems like a genuinly great guy. If you have a way to get the interviews published, it may well be worth trying to arrange an interview between the two of you! That would certainly enable us to get all the info we need! J Milburn 17:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! That came to me a few weeks ago, but I had forgotton about it. Thanks for reminding me, I'll e-mail him now. J Milburn 18:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Angel of Death
With many thanks to you for your feedback :) Lombardo next? M3tal H3ad 07:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's a good reviewer, and raised some valid points (track length is missing in the infobox) and hey at least it wasn't failed for "refs having too many numbers", "date are not formatted (when they are) and whatever the other thing was from the Still Reigning review >_> (which got promoted today :D). M3tal H3ad 08:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well Eternal Pyre was called an EP although it is the length of a single, but the previous single is "Bloodline". O and do you have photoshop? i found a decent picture of Dave under a CC-SA license but it's on a 45* angle and i don't have the software to rotate it (http://www.flickr.com/photos/elisfanclub/364238503/).M3tal H3ad 08:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think i told you this, but only 15 days until Slayer + Mastodon :D M3tal H3ad 12:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I saw Slayer on October 30th last year, and Mastodon when they supported Tool in the November time. LuciferMorgan 13:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13 to go :D, anyway this may sound strange, but if you have the time could you like review Slayer - references needed where? info that you think should be added? prose issues? anything. You haven't said much about it, i guess because it's an FA now but there's probably quite a lot of things which could be made better, don't hold back :D. M3tal H3ad 07:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to sound cheeky, I think other Slayer related articles warrant more attention than the flagship one at present. I can't notice anything wrong with it, though check Wikipedia:Music samples. As concerns prose, message Tony1 and he'll scan it for you - if he's fine with the prose then you have a decent article. Usually though he opens a can of worms, and usually justly so. LuciferMorgan 00:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, I'll work on some articles this weekend and Haunting the Chapel is up for GA. M3tal H3ad 12:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, This may help expand the music and structure for jihad [3]
What inspired you to come up with such melodic leads for this album?
Once again, we don´t over-think things. Ten percent of my leads are done in the studio and the rest I´ve done in my hotel room, working on it, working on it, working on it. Then I show up in the studio shouting “Quick, record it, I think I´ve got it!” It´s just spontaneous a lot of it. M3tal H3ad 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hell Awaits is basically finished, still looking for a good source for the COF cover, good thing that exclusive oral history exists :), i must order a copy.. (articles that aren't mentioned in it are crap) M3tal H3ad 08:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't work as Hanneman is being very general, and speaking about the album as a whole. Thanks anyway though. LuciferMorgan 08:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just checked "Hell Awaits" and you haven't used the official bio as a cite anywhere, so it definitely isn't done yet. That thing worked good for me for SOH, so should work good for HA. LuciferMorgan 08:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The official site bio? it's inaccurate crap the first line "The band was originally known as Dragonslayer before shortening its name to Slayer" isn't even true and it hasn't been updated in months. But I'll add the info about the backwards "join us" with an MTV source when i get back from my guitar lesson (bye :) M3tal H3ad 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You sure it isn't true? Hmm... yeah it hasn't been updated in a few months but I still used it for SOH. To avoid POV, I said "According to Slayer's official biography..." LuciferMorgan 08:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, in this interview with King [4] first video and it's the first question "Do you remember how you came up with the name DragonSlayer" - "We never did, it's a myth to this day". And you should nominate SOH asap with ze current backlog it will take awhile. M3tal H3ad 09:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? It's odd then that even their official bio has the same lie - a bad biographer. I don't think SOH would pass based on the fact I can't find info on lyrical content etc., but I'll nominate none the less. LuciferMorgan 17:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't nominate yet though until I've done the lead properly. LuciferMorgan 17:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the dragonslayer thing in the slayer article now. I could assess articles if you want, it's not hard to do in the metal genre, basically either a stub or a start. It's quite pathetic out of 3000+ articles you tagged there was one GA, and you wrote it :O. I don't see lyrical content as a way to fail SOH, although the All music guide review has "For other bands, focusing on death, Satanism, the supernatural, and the occult became a cliché; but Slayer's controversial reflections on evil always came across as honest and heartfelt" and the Rollingstone "Slayer, a depraved lot given to creepy ramblings about blood sacrifice and rotting flesh." could use a one sentence mention. M3tal H3ad 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
GA criteria
Hey Lucifer. I'm proposing a more...succinct version of the GA criteria here. Your input will be appreciated :) — Deckiller 00:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without trying to sound cheeky, can you tell me the differences between your proposal and the current GA criteria? I can't figure out much at present. LuciferMorgan 00:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's just more succinct, sort of in the spirit of the FA criteria. — Deckiller 00:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody will go for that since they'll want distinct differences between FA and GA. If GA / FA become one and the same, GA would be redundant. LuciferMorgan 00:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to do with the content of the criteria; rather, the writing style of the criteria. Also, thanks for catching [this; I failed to change the "an" when I turned 19 last week. — Deckiller 01:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fine to me if the proposed change highlights the differences between FA and GA by having similar writing styles. Congratulations on your 19th birthday by the way (I turn 20 in May). LuciferMorgan 01:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it's clear by looking that there is a significant difference. For example, the prose standard just requires clear and grammatically correct writing, as opposed to "compelling, even brilliant" prose. The comprehsiveness standard is still once again lower than that of FA, and there is a clarification footnote included. — Deckiller 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DavidShankBone deserves kudos for his current drive to provide quality LGBT photos from the NYC area. One of the more recent photos is posted on Michael Musto, and you can check out the gallery on David's user page.
Project News
There is now the beginning of a list of core topics to possibly be included in the Wikipedia 1.0 release. Your suggestions are welcome; there may be many core LGBT topics still missing.
SatyrTN identified all the articles that were in subcategories of Category:LGBT but not yet tagged with the project's banner, about 1,400 articles. These have been completed, though SatyrBot will make periodic runs through the cats to find any new entries. Thanks Satyr!
The number of articles within our project's spectrum (6,667 currently) should now be relatively stable and only grow with article creation. However, if you find a category that should be included, please let SatyrTN know so it can be included in the bots runs.
Work is underway to improve the LGBT Portal. Please add any good quality (free) photos you come across on LGBT articles to the gallery here. Also if anyone would like to volunteer to help in maintaining the portal, please make yourselves known on the Portal's talkpage.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please drop me a line. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive
Thank you for your contributions! -- WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Working Man's Barnstar
For your tireless and endless efforts in assessing biography articles, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Working Man's Barnstar. 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
The Golden Wiki Award
For your exceptional contributions to the WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive, WikiProject Biography Spring 2007 Assessment Drive hereby awards you The Golden Wiki Award. 16:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
You recently brought up a bunch articles at GA/R for delisting discussions. The instructions at GA/R clearly state that, and I quote "If you see an article on the GA list which clearly fails the criteria , you can delist it and remove it from the list at WP:GA immediately." GA/R should be used to discuss borderline cases, or when someone else objects to your moves (either to list or delist). The GA process should be kept as unbureaucratic as possible, and in cases where an article OBVIOUSLY is no longer GA status, go ahead and delist it. The articles you listed appear to be clear cut cases of delisting, and really stand little chance of generating much discussion for that reason. When you do delist an article, also leave extensive notes at the talk page to the article's editors can fix it back up to GA status. Thanks for doing such good work, though, on this project, and please keep working to improve wikipedia. Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I meant no offense. Please accept my humble appologies. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apology accepted as well here. I tend to be verbose in my comments, and I know it is a fault of mine. I try to make myself as clear as possible, and I know that at times my long-winded messages can come off as patronizing and condescending. For what its worth, my feeling is that we shouldn't always assume that editors are going to object to every delisting or GA failure. In my experience as an editor (I've not been around as long as you, but I'm not a newbie either) people respond very positively to a delisting or a failure if I explain clearly why I have done so. While I clearly understand why you are listing them all at GA/R, my feeling is that if an editor objects to my actions, it is up to THEM to bring it up at GA/R. I am always clear on why I do what I do, and any editor is free to challenge my actions on any article. Also, I do not wish to criticize how you handle these situations. My above, inexcusable comments not withstanding, your methods of handling delisting are valid and good, and they work for you, and so I should have no reason to try to convince you to do it otherwise. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. You seem to have a lot of experience and knowledge in working with Good Articles, and there are some editors (myself included) who are looking to develop better guidelines for reviewing nominees. I would really appreciate your input at Wikipedia:Reviewing good articles. Thanks again, and I feel bad about the mutual misunderstanding. I look forward to working with you in the future. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When reviewing a GAC, be very specific in what you think should be improved" Looks like we have the same mentality on this. Funny that we started out in conflict on this. I take reviewing GAs very seriously, and often spend about 45-60 minutes reviewing an article: 15-30 minutes reading it, checking pictures and references and 15-30 minutes writing the review. It always irks me when someone just fails an article and doesn't leave any suggestions for improvement.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again there seems to be a misunderstanding (this time with no conflict though). Click the link I left in my P.S.. Really. It will all become clear what my P.S. meant. (if you clicked the link I apologize for assuming you had not, but your recent message leads me to think to misunderstood what I was saying). --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Next FA? I think it's a possiblity. It has all the information there, today i added a picture from the blade film and Lombardo's kit and made some minor tweaks. I would like your opinion on it (and Hell Awaits) if you could, all your help is greatly appreciated :) M3tal H3ad 04:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think Lombardo's a much safer bet myself. There's probably a few Slayer articles I think have more FA potential than that one, such as RIB etc. Good luck with it though. I'll take a look at Hell Awaits soon (COF definitely did cover the song btw). It appeared as some bonus song on one of their CDs and on their hits album. LuciferMorgan 20:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RIB it is! It's almost ready just gotta add some pictures and expand the significance section. (added the COF thing to hell btw) M3tal H3ad 03:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Lombardo's definitely one for the future though. LuciferMorgan 03:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As concerns "Haunting the Chapel", you need to deal with covers to some extent. Do an AMG search for each song and that'll throw up a bunch of leads for that. LuciferMorgan 03:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks. Do you think RIB is ready for FA? i don't want to add every cover of each song as that section will be a bit too big. M3tal H3ad 11:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lists usually require less inline citations, because they are taken from references that are lists themselves, and the claims are less controversial or varied. Of course, controversial claims on lists (or notes and explanations) should still have cites, but if everything is given an inline citation, it will end up being a list of four or five cites combined 100-fold. Either way, one ref for a list is nowhere near enough. — Deckiller 23:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
The Music Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your exceptional and tireless work improving Wikipedia and fighting for high quality, well referenced articles. In particular, and the reason why this is a music barnstar, I'm deeply appreciative of your work in improving articles related to the hereto fancruft-ridden heavy metal genre. --kingboyk 13:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
