User talk:Gunmetal Angel

• Welcome to my talk page •

Leave me a message if you would like, thanks!

°•° GmA º•º

Other stuff

This user has asked for Wikipedians to give his feedback at an editor review. You may comment on his edits at Wikipedia:Editor review/Gunmetal Angel.

» Click here to see my awards :D « » Click here for something neat «

Poison the Well

Can you please show me a source that says Poison the Well has signed to Rise Records? There's a huge difference between signing a contract to have a label own the rights to what an artist creates, and having a label reissue old material under an exclusive license from another label. Of course Rise will list the band on their roster, it's pretty hard to sell merchandise without an online presence, but it still doesn't mean Poison the Well has signed to the label. In fact, it's even possible that Poison the Well had nothing to do with these reissues.

For example, the allmusic entry for Black Sabbath's Paranoid lists dozens of labels in which the album has been reissued over the years. Should all of these be mentioned in the infobox at Black Sabbath? Hell no. Only the labels which hold or have held the rights to the group's music should be mentioned. And for an example of a label displaying an artist in their active roster even though they aren't signed to the label, check out Deathwish Records' band list. That label has a ton of bands who've reissued old material that are listed as part of the label. Hell, Kylesa only has one song released through Deathwish that was part of a reissued split EP, yet they're currently listed as "active". Give Up the Ghost reissued their two studio albums through Deathwish, and the webstore makes it perfectly clear that these releases are "under exclusive license from Equal Vision Records"[1][2], yet they too are listed as an active band. It's just a business/marketing thing and it doesn't mean the group has actually signed to the label. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I opened up a discussion at Template talk:Infobox musical artist#Reissue label? and my argument seems to be supported there. Fezmar9 (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I added Rise Records to the list of labels for Poison the Well was because of this http://www.riserecords.com/new_site/bands_inside.htm • GunMetal Angel 23:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Calzini

Would like to hear your explanation for restoring libellous/vandalism here. Or should I assume that it was a mistake?-Cntras (talk) 05:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was made by Brian Calzini himself. He was vandalizing articles like Limp Bizkit, Korn and Marilyn Manson and making Facebook statuses about them so I reverted those edits to those articles and reverting that one that he made to his own page too in regards to everything else he was doing on this site with. Also, I don't see how that edit is vandalism anyway, controversial, yes, but vandalism? I mean it does have a source. Also I took a further look on the article, and even the guy that put that on the page asked on the talk page why it was being removed. So can I ask you why you think it's vandalism? Something controversial does not mean it's vandalism, good sir. • GunMetal Angel 06:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to verify the notion that it was Brian Calzini who made those edits? It is vandalism either way and the fact that I even have to explain this to you is a little concerning. As for the references, I don't suppose WP:RS means anything to you?-Cntras (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on. The IP which you referred to as 'Brian' (98.237.80.129) was actually the one who repeatedly removed the content. [3] [4]. -Cntras (talk) 07:52, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See? I told you it was Brian, he obviously wants to dumb down the fact that he blew another man even though in that source there are pictures. But it doesn't quite matter to me since I don't really care what ends up on that page. I was just reverting his edits since practically all of them were vandalism and when I looked into this situation, I found out what was really going on into deeper detail. Whether it is on the article or not didn't matter to me • GunMetal Angel 08:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’m astounded as to how you could be so oblivious to BLP concerns. WP:BLP – ‘ Contentious material about living persons (or recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced - whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion’ -Cntras (talk) 08:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I never read that. Like I said, dude: I don't care about Brian Calzini or him sucking dicks or any of the latter of the situation like I just stated above. Sorry I reverted something that I was not quite so aware on due to the fact that I was simply reverting a vandal's edits and did not give this much insight to what was actually going on until after it was done. • GunMetal Angel 09:05, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stones Roses

I agree with you on your last edits. Thanks for being so civilised. Davdevalle (talk) 18:52, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting We Are Defiance and Brian Calzini

Hello Gunmetal Angel,

can you protect the articles for We Are Defiance and Brian Calzini so that unregistrated users can´t change the articles? It seems that some users added something what is wrong in the articles. Thank you --Goroth (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why everyone thinks I'm admin now • GunMetal Angel 00:33, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry. Can you contact an admin please or tell me a user name? --91.22.42.13 (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just go here and put the articles you want protected on the page • GunMetal Angel 02:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deicide

You've used this site long enough to know not to make unsourced, undiscussed changes to genres suiting your opinion. I have no problem templating regulars who don't follow basic Wikipedia rules (and I ignore the essay (not policy) WP:DTR – besides, I wasn't misusing it, per WP:DTR: "They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template."). Start discussing your proposed genre changes, or start providing sources. Also, start using the edit summary, you make far too many edits without any explanation (again, something that I would expect you to know to do, considering how long you've been here). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I originally added that to the page was because it was in the history and felt like it was rightfully placed there. I don't care about what the genre says. Furthermore; I don't have to do what you tell me, just like you feel like it's okay to piss off users by using templates for them. • GunMetal Angel 06:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding a genre just because it was in the history is not a good reason to re-add a genre. If you re-add it, provide a source. This is a basic Wikipedia guideline: WP:CITE. Whether you source it in the infobox, or somewhere in the article, a source is required.

Please read WP:DTR completely. Specifically, the last section. I did not leave the template to piss you off, I left it because you keep changing genres without providing any sources or starting any discussion, and I wanted to let you know about it in a simple, easy-to-understand manner. The template was the best choice to do that. Opeth, Meshuggah, Deicide, and other articles immediately come to mind as examples where you have done this.

Also, Wikipedia:EDITSUMMARY#Always provide an edit summary. Always a good idea. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? I never did that to Opeth or Meshuggah. Stop making stuff up to try to put me on the line • GunMetal Angel 07:20, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opeth and Meshuggah. I'm not making anything up. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Lolwow, that is not changing genres, that's applying to WP:NEUTRAL without even to regard the long discussion I held over the talk page for Opeth suggesting that the lead should state rock since the band does not exclusively play metal along with following the neutral guideline. Same goes for Meshuggah. So yeah, you practically are making things up and lumping them together with something totally unrelated. • GunMetal Angel 07:41, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes, I assure you that I am a real person.

You changed genres from "heavy metal" to "rock" on Opeth, and from "extreme metal" to "heavy metal" on Meshuggah (and you changed genres from "death metal" to "death metal, blackened death metal" on Deicide). That's changing genres. I'm not sure how you don't understand that that is changing genres. I am not "lumping together" "unrelated" edits, all were unsourced, undiscussed genre changes.

Yes, you did start a discussion on Opeth after the diff I provided. Why did you not do so prior to your edits on Meshuggah and Deicide? You knew that making those sorts of changes would be challenged. You also saw that after discussion, consensus was reached on the Opeth page (which is how pages should be edited, by consensus). Heck, this isn't even the first time I've said that discussion is better than unsourced, undiscussed edits: see here, after your Meshuggah genre change (where I acknowledge the discussion you started on Opeth). Clearly you didn't understand what I was saying then, so this time I used a template, in the hopes that you may better understand that unsourced, undiscussed edits to genres is not good editing practice on Wikipedia.

Can you provide a quote from WP:NEUTRAL that supports your claim that you were "applying to WP:NEUTRAL"? I see nothing non-neutral about calling a band an applicable genre in its article's lead.

Suffice it to say, you make too many unsourced, undiscussed (and usually unexplained) edits, especially to genres. As you said, you've been around here long enough, and so I would expect you to know basic editing practices, like including sources to information you add/change. This is explained in WP:V, one of the core policies of Wikipedia: "Other people have to be able to check that you didn't just make things up. This means that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I made those changes to Meshuggah and Opeth articles based open the neutrality guideline. Unless you're trying to convince everyone that doing what the project tells you to do shouldn't be followed, then you are wrong. • GunMetal Angel 17:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a quote from WP:NEUTRAL that supports your claim that you were "applying to WP:NEUTRAL"? I see nothing non-neutral about calling a band an applicable genre in its article's lead. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective — "rock" is a genre of heavy metal and "heavy metal" is a generalization to everything Meshuggah plays. I am not changing these things just because I feel like it. Considering how long you've been on here, I would expect you to know this before bitching at me for "changing genres". • GunMetal Angel 17:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, my main problem is not that you change the genres, but that you do so without any sources or discussion. Regardless of why you change genres, WP:V is still policy and should still be followed.

I don't think you understand what "neutral" means. Making an article "neutral" does not mean to generalize it. It means to avoid skewing the article towards a particular viewpoint or opinion. For example, "Opeth is an awesome heavy metal band from Sweden" is not neutral. Neither is "Opeth is a terrible heavy metal band from Sweden". But "Opeth is a heavy metal band from Sweden" is quite neutral. Calling the band "heavy metal" is not biased, when supported by sources (which it is, by several sources in the article).

Rock is not a genre of heavy metal. Heavy metal is a genre of rock.

How would I know that you aren't "changing these things just because I feel like it" when you provide no discussion or even an edit summary explaining what you are doing? Without any explanation or discussion, for all I know you are "changing these things just because [you] feel like it". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because SEVERAL articles follow this exact same thing that I was making for Opeth and other company? For example Senses Fail says they're a rock band not a "an American post-hardcore band", Panic! at the Disco says they're "an American rock band", not a "alternative rock band" and Linkin Park says "Linkin Park is an American rock band", not a "nu metal band". Keep in mind, I don't even edit these articles because they're not my type of music. I like metal. I listen to Opeth, Meshuggah and several bands like them and felt as bands like My Chemical Romance follow this neutrality guideline, then why the hell can't Meshuggah and other metal band articles follow the same damn thing? I mean hell, even Pantera says in the lead that they're a heavy metal band, not a "groove metal band". • GunMetal Angel 21:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, from what I've seen there is no "neutrality guideline" stating to generalize information given in articles. Can you provide a quote from a guideline/policy explicitly stating to "generalize" information given in articles? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good enough reason on its own.

Interestingly enough, you appear to edit all of those articles you listed. In fact, I notice that you're the one who changed the lead on Senses Fail, which up until your change a couple months ago did in fact call them "an American post-hardcore band". I see Panic! at the Disco took tons of discussion and even went to the WP:Mediation Cabal in order to sort out what genre to call the band, and Linkin Park also had plenty of discussion on its genres. Once again, more support for having discussions prior to making changes. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're not getting it. I don't wanna talk about this anymore • GunMetal Angel 23:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting it just fine, but no problem. Just make sure that future edits are accompanied by sources (and provide those sources, don't just allude to them like you did on Portals (album)), and/or are discussed first. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 18:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at JohnCD's talk page.
Message added 12:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Indefinitely blocked

You have violated your voluntary restriction: "edit warring related to genres on Brand New in violation of WP:1RR restriction in place" and have been indefinitely blocked. You may appeal this block, and I am not opposed to it being modified if you agree to broader restrictions on your editing such as a topic-ban on music-related subjects, broadly construed. However, your edit-warring and disruption related to it must be put to an end. Toddst1 (talk) 23:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason why I did it was because he was vandalizing so many articles. Changing stuff like "metalcore" on pages to "fashioncore". Which is purely ridiculous and obvious vandalism. He even removed maintenance templates off other pages. I've agreed to not edit warring on genres, which I wasn't trying to do. Don't you see that this was vandalism I was reverting? He kept on restoring stuff on Brand New and changing their genre to "gothic rock", like are you kidding me? Do Brand New really play a live show in make up and wear all black? No they don't. Just because I revert someone's vandalism means I have to get blocked for it? • GunMetal Angel 00:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you can log back on and unblock me soon because there are several disruptions occurring right now that need to be taken care of. But given that I'm blocked and I'm really the only one that babysits these pages, I guess they'll have to stay vandalized. • GunMetal Angel 07:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the three edits you mention. Trouble is they don't look like vandalism, unless you're far more aware of the scene. The first edit does seem initially suspicious, based on the addition of Nicki Minaj, but if you look at the respective pages of the associated acts they do state that they have all supported each other at various times in the past. Additionally, the second two genre changes are borderline, and before reversion discussion would be a better path to take. I'll grant that discussion before the initial change would also have been a good idea, but that hasn't happened, so be the good citizen and query it after the fact, and ask why they think a genre change is justified. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you go here Template:Musical artist and read what the associated acts part of it is for, it clearly states that the field is not used for those types of bands. What was in that field before was its proper use, but that IP address just deleted the correct content of what the guideline stated. Also the other edit clearly removes sourced content and the last one puts in unsourced content with poor grammar included. « « « « This right here, this what I just explained is ALWAYS, I repeat ALWAYS my biggest problem on the site; I revert disruptions that no one seems to get WHY they're disruptions, which is why I get blocks like this. Yes it isn't fair, but I never have room to explain how it isn't. Every blocking admin will never get a chance to see the troubles I see and assume that it's edit warring when it's really technically a huge disruption. Take how I blocked for example, I was reverting completely absurd edits to the Brand New article. No fan of Brand New in a million years would call them gothic rock. That's preposterous. Let alone edits that remove content that is sourced more than 5 times should come as common sense why they're vandalism. • GunMetal Angel 10:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is discussion, and a pretty good one too. Why didn't you pour all this out at point of reversion on the talk pages, instead of after you'd been blocked because you didn't explain your reasoning? Our paths first corssed a couple of years ago for a similar reason - you had good reason to revert, but were not taking the time to explain why, and just using Twinkle to revert which was classing everything as vandalism - when they were not vandal edits. Calm down a bit, and explain your thought processes. Explain why you are doing things. Ask why other people are doing things. Just some comments. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me man, I've tried it countless times. I hope the admin when he wakes up soon and logs on can see this discussion and have the heart to unblock me and will hopefully see this the way I do. • GunMetal Angel 11:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]