User talk:Gunmetal Angel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Sorry

Hey buddy, sorry i didn't mean to change it, and i honestly went to change it back straight away and my computer froze for some strange reason, i was looking to congrats you on it, because it was a good job. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ICheets (talk • contribs) 23:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. : ] - GunMetal Angel 20:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Suicide Silence edit and Salt the Wound

No problem on this. I'm not sure if Third Degree is a subsidary or not but more investigation wouldn't hurt. The main reason for my edit was there was something clearly missing within that sentence. If Third Degree is indeed a part of IATD records then I would just relabel it with 'English record label' and maybe link "record label". FireCrystal (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I said I would link "record label" and not the actual record label. For help in citing sources there is an add-on in your preferences under the gadgets setting where you can add a cite for books (and other types). I'm not sure if this is for certain browsers. FireCrystal (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem and by the way, I was bored. :) I can understand that and I presumed so too and just decided to add their "official site" just temporarily until they can remake it. I might continue with the article and see what I can find and what I can add. FireCrystal (talk) 02:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the first time I heard of them was when I was editing the list of deathcore bands and it was constantly being removed for not having an article and one day it did so I checked it to see if the article was ok or just stub-worthy. I just can't say I ever heard their music before if that's what you're asking. FireCrystal (talk) 02:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I don't know of any metal radio stations around and I don't have satellite radio so I guess I'm out of luck. As for images, I already searched StW and the members on wikimediacommons and yielded no results. Since they're active, only fair use images should be used. If you really want one, I will put the image request template on the talk page (or if you already have an image and never told me then all is well). Oh, and good luck with gadget-use. ;) It takes a little getting used to. FireCrystal (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Danger: Wildman

Hello Gunmetal Angel, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I contested the speedy deletion of Danger: Wildman - a page you tagged - because: There is sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. NW (Talk) 02:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I marked it for the wrong reason, I'm new to gadget use and I was actually trying to flag the article to be deleted because it was very limited on information. • GunMetal Angel 02:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

There is enough content in this version of the article to not tag it for speedy deletion under criteria. A3 (no content) is meant for blank or mostly blank pages. Perhaps you should consider reading User:SoWhy/Ten Commandments for Speedy Deletion and Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion; those will help you out quite a bit in deciding what to tag for deletion. NW (Talk) 02:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstars

You will probably get one sometime. Just don't give your hopes up. :) I think it's all about getting noticed really. The appreciation just kinda makes your day. FireCrystal (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Nile

I'll have a look at it later today if I can... just got back from Wacken so seriously knackered ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Quite funny! Not a fan of JFaC, but that surely made me laugh for a while!! ^TheWeak_Willed 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

An explanation

Reading your comment at Talk:Bullet for My Valentine, I see a reference to my revert of your edit at "Bleed It Out" and to my stubbornness. I really hope you're not getting the impression that I'm stalking you, and I'm very sorry if you are. I have no intention of reverting your edits specifically. As I stated in my edit summary at "Bleed It Out", you did fail to provide a source for your genre, and that was no better than the editors that added the other genres. Every fact that is likely to be challenged must be sourced, and that especially includes genres, which are almost always very contentious. In addition, you failed to provide an edit summary to explain what you were doing and why. Please take this as advice for the future, and I hope you don't hold a grudge. I'm just doing what I believe is best for the project, just like you are. I hope we can work collaboratively in the future and resolve the BFMV issue peacefully and through discussion rather than edit warring. Happy editing. Timmeh (review me) 00:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at Timmeh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Timmeh (review me) 00:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I'll have you know that Youtube links are absoulutely allowed as long as it is put up by the owner of the video. In this case the music video was put up by Sony, Alice in Chains' record company. Please read WP:YOUTUBE and WP:LINKVIO. So, please do not remove the video again. I look forward to your edit and I'll see what I can add/change around.-5- (talk) 03:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pot

Hi, made an edit on the article about "The Pot" by tool regarding the Les Escargots video and you deleted it. The information was accurate, I'd say. Did I source incorrectly? Kinda new to this. --68.200.135.225 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Winds of Plague

I participated in the discussion on the talk page and nobody disagreed with my statement. WoP are in no way Black metal and I showed this. Please check the talk page before reverting someone's edits. KezianAvenger (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for my terrible grammar. Sure WoP contain symphonic black metal elements. But by this logic, Avenged Sevenfold's self titled album should also say country, as some songs on that album contain country elements. And about sources, you have no sources saying they are symphonic black metal. Let's take the rest of this discussion to the talk page of the album, shall we? KezianAvenger (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes but even still, you can't deny the absence of sources on these genres. Or even on the albums in general. This will be the last talk page comment. Avenged sevenfold also had country elements in Gunslinger and a bit in Brompton Cocktail. KezianAvenger (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And I want to ask you something else too. how do you change the colour of your signature? KezianAvenger (talk) 15:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. And it's sourced now so arguments have ended. KezianAvenger (talk) 11:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Years active in infoboxes

Hey! I've noticed you've changed the format in a few different articles and would like to make you aware of the discussion over at the relevant talk page. There seems to be a fair consensus that the format should stay as is, anyway here's the link, if you wish to argue your reasoning for the changes. Cheers. k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 13:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This is still an issue, please spend a few minutes reading over these: [1] and [2] k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 02:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to DragonForce

Hello, I noticed that you removed some parts of the "Musical style" section of the DragonForce article, but you didn't explain why in the edit summary. As you're an experienced editor, instead of just throwing an user warning at your talk page and reverting your edit, I'm opting for a discussion on the removal. Oh, and be aware that I'm not going to be able to respond to it until 24 hours from now...=P Thank you, Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

30 Seconds to Mars genre

It's time to give up the reversion war. Find sources that specifically describe the genres of each song, add those to the articles, and stop removing the sourced genre, even if you disagree with the source or the applicability of the source. Keep on the path you are going on, and I'll take the case to WP:AN3. You will likely wind up blocked for edit-warring, which isn't a good result for either side. A slow edit-war spread over half a dozen articles isn't good either, though.—Kww(talk) 19:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Those songs don't have the proper source to describe the genre stated on them (more so one of them at least has a correct source for alternative rock). I was applying the original genres the whole time in replacement of the "hard rock"genre statements. • GunMetal Angel 19:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I recognize your problem. Maybe adding back the originals without taking the "hard rock" out would be enough, but if you do so without sources, you are in the weaker position than the anons: even if the applicability of their source is weak (and I agree with you that it's not a great source), at least they have one. Constantly reverting them isn't the answer, though.—Kww(talk) 19:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Darkest Hour

The reason why I kept the genres like that in the lead was because there has been edit warring over the lead genre for quite awhile before and this was one of the only ways to end it. The Black Dahlia Murder used it for awhile but edit warring continued so I decided to scratch the whole genre in the lead section (heavy metal was also used). If it continues for far too long (between page protections and beyond) I will do the same for Darkest Hour since it seems to be the best way to rid of such edit warring since it has almost completely ceased for TBDM. FireCrystal (talk) 19:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Iwrestledabearonce EP.jpg)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Iwrestledabearonce EP.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Escape the Fate

I made that wiki-link as this page is often edited by IP editors with little experience and they (before I put the hidden note in about wikifying) often did make self-referential links. I noticed that I hadn't interlinked the WP:NOTE, and thought that rather than making them search for it, I could just direct them to it, hopefully improving their edits to wikipedia. I don't feel that my edit was pointless and have thus reverted your revert. If you still think, after this explanation, that it's pointless, please feel free to contact me to explain why. Thanks Fol de rol troll (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm really tired and you're entirely right. I'm a dunce. I've reverted myself and I'm going to bed. Sorry man. Fol de rol troll (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Parkway Drive

Ok, I know it has been awhile but I finally got around to the cleanup of Parkway Drive. I wasn't exactly sure what you truly wanted me to fix but I hope what I did makes up for any ignorance. :) FireCrystal (talk) 01:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion, the ignorance bit was only about anything in the article that I might have missed while editing. I never knew someone put me up to those high standards so I thank you. FireCrystal (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Them Bones intro

What is your issue with the Them Bones introduction? It's simply just additional information on when those albums were released. I have seen it done before in other articles. It's better than saying i.e. "released in 1999" after every release. Also, the grammar that you are using for your edit is incorrect.-5- (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Just as an example, the Radiohead introduction uses that same exact format for years and that's a featured article.-5- (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Dragonforce/DragonForce

Hi there. I am willing to go with consensus as I don't feel particularly strongly about the issue. However, I'd like to make a couple of points... firstly, the last revert was based on the grounds that the editor in question considers "DragonForce" to be a trademark (although even their link oints out the decision is down to editor preference); I personally prefer to work to WP:NAME (see specific section on band names about 3/4 of the way down that states policy about band names and typographic conceits; it specifically mentions Korn for instance). Secondly, you are categorically incorrect to suggest that the capitalisation of a letter within the middle of a word conforms with grammatical convention; this is precisely why it is a marketing conceit. We have had similar problems with SlipKnot, underOATH etc. I would prefer that an encyclopedia conformed with English grammar rather than pandering to marketing, but as I say, I will yield to consensus. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'd rather stick to grammar than trademarks (this being supposedly an encyclopedia after all), but the guidelines appear to allow for editor discretion; I will go with consensus. I will state for the final time however that this is a contravention of "basic grammar", and object to your implication otherwise. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Page deletion,

If you wish to delete your userpage, simply put {{db-u1}} on it. Then wait.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 01:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: I deleted it for you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you; but I recreated my page per me changing my mind :] . • GunMetal Angel 00:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

30stm edit

In what way did i vandalize the page? I was simply updating it with a new picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dem467 (talk • contribs)

I clearly linked the edit that you did vandalism with where it says "this edit". What you did was remove the genre "emo" from the listing of genres when there's a large hidden message on the article saying not to do so. Thus the edit you made has been identified as vandalism and has lead to the warning you received. • GunMetal Angel 18:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh right, didnt read the discussion sorry. But surely you could keep the picture there? --Dem467 (talk) 11:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure I guess I'll restore it. -- GunMetal Angel 15:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah thats okay, should have checked. Guess we have to wait for the new album.--Dem467 (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Image sizes

I don't remember which page is it and I'm about to head off so can't go digging just now, but it is explained somewhere that forcing image sizes can cause issues for some readers depending on their browsers, I believe. This was pointed out to me when I was working on Knitta. It might be on the talk page there. I'll check later. Anyway, what looked good for us may not look good for everyone, so it's recommended to let the image sizes be left to default. Lara 17:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I continuously switch between browsers and computers weekly (usually from Windows with Firefox, and Internet Explorer 8) to Mac (with Safari... ect.) I'm well aware how the image sizes seem different with different browsers, in which case they usually seem messy when they're near infoboxes or section headings, in this case none of those seemed as if they were even close to interfering with such peripherals. Or otherwise; correct me if I'm wrong. -- GunMetal Angel 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not as late as I thought so I just went searching for the guide and I can't find it. Perhaps they've updated the software so that it doesn't matter anymore. I'm not sure. I also didn't see it in the history of Knitta... I know I was told this, though. It's just been nearly two years. So, whatever. Not a big deal. Lara 17:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pot

Um... yeah, I don't want to get off to a bad start, so I'll be as polite as possible. Why is it that The Pot can't have "Progressive Metal" in the genre box? While I admit I only added the genre to see how quickly it would be removed, I'd also consider the song to actually belong to that genre as well as the genres already listed. This is coming from someone who owns all of Tool's albums. So... reasons? As a side note, you've got a great taste in music. --Lordnecronus (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll refrain from editing the page in the future unless I see blatant vandalism, like listing the band's genre as psychobilly or something like that. --LordNecronus (talk) 16:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

haha Thanks!

[3] I've been patrolling the tagged edits on recent changes for a while, and haven't gotten something this that funny in a while! TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit, here's another good one, but it is too libel to post on my userpage. It's a metal one as well Kirk Hammett edit. Funny as hell, but not appropriate for my userpage. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Move

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

And they shall become like us

Thanks for the thanks to User talk:38.116.200.85. They will be assimilated --Alchemist Jack (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I assume that IP address is someone that forgot to login or forgot their password. • GunMetal Angel 20:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What I Like About You (song)

Just wanted to explain why I changed your edit on this song's page. Your sentence came out as "The song, written by Romantics members Wally Palmar, Mike Skill, Rich Cole, and Jimmy Marinos and is released as a single, it is featured on the band's self-titled 1980 debut album, and was also released as a single." As you can see, it says "released as a single" twice; I don't see any need for that. The grammar is also off--"written" and "is released" don't match, and "The song...it is featured" is redundant. Let me know if you see anything wrong with this or have any questions.Brettalan (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Brutal death metal"

Yeah I know. The thing is, I love all those bands. nd if Terrorizer or someone wrote an article specifically about the subgenre of "brutal death metal", I'd help write that article. This is what these people don't seem to understand... it's all a matter of finding sources. No sources, no article. Oh, and the other frustrating/hilarious thing is when they come back with webzines as sources. Also, this comment pretty much had me in stitches yesterday. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Oh, come on. I was not angry. I was just annoyed. It's not that easy to be nice when I am annoyed. Don't be so sensitive. The reason why I told you to write to TRC article anything you want was that I do not enjoy to be someone's pain in the ass even though I know they're wrong.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: "Brutal death metal"

Yeah I know. The thing is, I love all those bands. nd if Terrorizer or someone wrote an article specifically about the subgenre of "brutal death metal", I'd help write that article. This is what these people don't seem to understand... it's all a matter of finding sources. No sources, no article. Oh, and the other frustrating/hilarious thing is when they come back with webzines as sources. Also, this comment pretty much had me in stitches yesterday. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re

Oh, come on. I was not angry. I was just annoyed. It's not that easy to be nice when I am annoyed. Don't be so sensitive. The reason why I told you to write to TRC article anything you want was that I do not enjoy to be someone's pain in the ass even though I know they're wrong.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 14:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Does it matter?--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"Too Bright to See, Too Loud to Hear"

I don't want to start an edit war with you, so to prove that Spencer doesn't sing almost the whole song, watch the video. It's professionally shot live footage. The first song is "Desperate Times, Desperate Measures", just watch the second song. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3xTV3mWTGo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cold Phront (talk • contribs) 00:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Singles

Sorry, I forgot you messaged me. To find covers that are more rare I usually search ebay or musicstack.com. Livewire1015 (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Aerosmith's 15th

That one's a little tricky. There are sources, but almost none of them has anything to do with the album. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Your reverts

I've looked at the history of The Devil Wears Prada (band), and it seems that you are incorrectly reverting a lot of IPs with your edit summary saying "vandalism". Please only use twinkle to revert if it is unquestionable vandalism, not just good faith edits. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 14:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTVAND and WP:REVERT, both state you shouldn't revert something as "vandalism" unless it is blatant vandalism. If you just disagree with another editor it doesn't mean you revert them and call it "identified as vandalism", (also the identified part of that doesn't matter, you're still saying it's vandalism) what you should do is talk with them about it either on the talk page of the article or on their talk page. Please no more revisions of what you "think" to be vandalism, like this [4] (which quite obviously is not vandalism). --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand, I guess I'll only flag what is truly vandalism per WP:VAND, also, might I add; I don't consider things that I don't agree with vandalism, but only things that appear as it is in this case, there has been much dicussion over that edit (the one you linked to) and I generally assumed it was done by annoyace, but furthermore, edits that I have witnessed before that seemed absurd would generallly be considered typical vandalism, but I'm no one to point fingers. • GunMetal Angel 00:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well of course, an edit saying something like Lindsay Lohan is engaged to Bill Clinton, would be obvious vandalism. But that's beside the point, anything that doesn't look like blatant vandalism requires an edit summary explaining exactly what the problem with the edit is. Hope this helps, Coffee // have a cup // ark // 00:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, more of my future reverts will be under the "reverted good faith edits" flagging in the future. Thank you for your time and pointing this out to me. • GunMetal Angel 00:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at Coffee's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I See Stars

If you can find a source, specifically labeling them as post-hardcore, then fine.GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The source I cited can also cover the electronica genre as well. As long as there is a source for post-hardcore, I'm happy. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey gunmetal, to add to the above comment, would you be ever so kind as to put your opinion on ISS's talk page. if you would, we can get the page unprotected.--Krazycev 13 21:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing, once I get around to it I will, although sources will be hard to find since they are kinda new. • GunMetal Angel 22:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Korn's ninth

After the Aerosmith epic fail, I think that one can stay. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Devil Wears Prada

as so long as my edit on The Devil Wears Prada's page is NOT reverted, we won't have a problem. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole "since" to "present" changes you're making isn't the proper format according to MOS:DATE. -- GunMetal Angel 19:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

it isn't the preferred format, but I will concede to you lol. about the picture though, would the one that I proposed be considered promotional? GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I Can't see the image, MySpace is blocked, I'm at a library. -- GunMetal Angel 19:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

oh, well here it is. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 19:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Nice photo, but I can't tell if it's newer or older or whether or not they all got haircuts. Interesting hair style from James Baney there too, lol. Well whatever, it's good to see at least 5 of the 6 members visible in the photo, usually when a photo is enhanced it would be copyrighted, and there has been problems with collecting images from MySpace in the past, although Wikipedia has a relationship with Flickr, so your best bet is to look for a photo by them on there, but be sure it's not licensed (see this for full-info on that subject). -- GunMetal Angel 19:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

got it! GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed (before you added that comment, haha). -- GunMetal Angel 20:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your help man. sorry about all the fighting, it's just that (as cliche as it sounds) I know for a fact who and what these guys are because I've met them so many times and have actually heard them talk about the band's faith and how they don't want to not label themselves as a Christian band. thanks for all your understanding. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I figured that since you live in Ohio, people are very considerate to the bands that live near them. I've liked the Devil Wears Prada since mid-2008 and have always known they're a Christian band but kept it off the page because no other Christian band's article was written like that, but I guess in this case the article written that way is acceptable seeing how they're so dedicated to their faith and are basically the definition of Christian metal. But keep in mind; if you want a change like this in the future... discuss it on the talk page, please don't force it. -- GunMetal Angel 20:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

They really are the definition for Christian metalcore (or whatever you want to call it) because they've been around since 2005. But thanks for all your help with the picture and everything. I saw that you put the old picture in the main article, nice. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like to see images going to waste. -- GunMetal Angel 20:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I just think that a new picture needed to be put up badly. And I'm glad I found one with all the members in it. GaudiumInVeritate (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at Beeblebrox's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TDWP

how did i vandalise the page? according to this website, Ziggy was the previous bassist. tyvm.--Krazycev 13 14:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused...

... about this being made before this. Timmeh 23:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I consulted TenPoundHammer, I didn't directly request deletion. • GunMetal Angel 23:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at Timmeh's talk page.
Message added 23:46, 21 October 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

All Hope Is Gone Cover

The All Hope Is Gone cover will stay as it was. This is because there are plenty of references supporting that the special edition cover is the one you put at the top of the info box. CrowzRSA 22:24, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess we can go with the sources on this one, I knew it was the special edition because I own the special edition version of the album, but why did you even revert one of my edits if you're telling me this? I mean if you're generally saying it is fully comfirmed that that is the cover for the special edition, why would you get rid of the cover of the standard in the infobox? • GunMetal Angel 22:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: The Red Chord

Well, it's simple. 1.:Genre: There is no ambiguity about the band's genre among the sources, so there is absolutely no need to generalize the band's genre. The several genres I listed in the article, that the band draws influence from, have nothing to do with what genre the band is. If you think that there is an ambiguity, you are making an ambiguity up by commiting synthesis of published material that advances a position (by the way I've already told you this before). The absolute majority of sources settles down to call the band a "grindcore" band (with death metal and deathgrind falling under that one) and "deathcore" band. This means that those are included in the infobox. The reason why the initial one is used in the lead is simple: the term "deathcore" has been used in the more recently published sources (Prey For Eyes related texts), is rather very new and has been coined very recently - so there is no need to overuse it in an encyclopedia too prematurely. I hope you won't make me explain this again - seriously.

2.: External links: Read this deletion review of the MySpace template. The reason why it was kept is that many "[m]any bands and celebs have official MySpace page" PC78 (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC). - including The Red Chord. The band uses it as an official page. For example, only some of the news, that are published on TRC's MySpace are published on theredchord.com as well. An official MySpace page falls under the exception of "a link to an official page of the article's subject." WP:ELNO. I hope this is clear enough to you.

To answer your question "so I ask you; why are you doing this yet again?": What do you mean by "doing this"? Doing what? The only thing I'm doing is fixing your errors that I explained above.

See this just as a friendly advice: I don't want to discourage you, but always when editors write and improve articles to bring them to better quality (what I did here: before, after), GA quality or FA quality, there are always many editors around like you, who do not unserstand something (for example WP:SYN, WP:ELNO) and hinder the work of the others. In music articles it's often genre warriors, who come to an article after the others did all the work (collected the sources and spend their time with writing the article), and then the genre warriors start to annoy the creators. I really do not want to annoy you, but would you consider picking up some article (about some of your favourite bands) and doing someting creative instead of wasting your and my time? That would make you a better editor. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 23:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well allright then.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

RE

These sources aren't reliable. This [5] isn't reliable because is a gig review of an user that is called Roxy Iqbal. There were no sources saying that Roxy was a music critic or anything. So this was just a fan calling 30 Seconds to Mars "emo". That doesn't seem to fit Wikipedias standards of a reliable resource.

This [6] was from an Alex Fletcher in a place called Digitalspy. Again, searches for Alex Fletcher revealed that the guy is not known for being a music critic. Furthermore, in searching Digitalspy, I found out that the place is a FORUM. That could mean that anyone can use it. That is not reliable resources, and again seems to violate Wikipedia standards.

This [7] is the same thing. This place is a COMMUNITY. That could mean that anyone can use it. It is from a 20 years old girl called Jordan Dowling ([8]) that is sign up on the community. Again seems to violate Wikipedia standards. These sources aren't reliable, so I delete it.--Loverdrive (talk) 12:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be best to createa topic on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents page.

I doubt he's going to stop any time soon. I don't care one way or the other myself, but he's changing it apparently without consensus or even must discussion. If all else fails, you can maybe get the pages protected, but this is sort of a content dispute. HalfShadow (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in getting involved beyond how I already have. It's on AN/I, let's see what happens. 18:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Gunmetal Angel. You have new messages at Blanchardb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Minor genre warring nitpick

Since I'm babysitting watching 30 Seconds to Mars and looking for editwarring (especially genre warring), can you make sure to use edit summaries, even on trivial edits like this? A 12-character change is more than enough to insert or remove a genre tedder (talk) 21:55, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Underoath

Fine by me. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Bullet for My Valentine

You obviously didn't read the section of Mos that I linked to, so here it is again: WP:OTHERDATE. It clearly states that "since" is to be used in article text (with "present" in the infobox) - it's not my interpretation. Radiopathy •talk• 00:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe you didn't misinterpret it and I appologize if you were bothered by me saying that (even though it wasn't exactly directed to you) but the general statement of "Since 2008" when it's a timeline format and everything is supposed to be progressing within that context just makes no sense, and even MOS:DATE itself says nothing about progressive dates the statement that it had on there about how "1996-present" should be "Since 1996" were hinting at all the continous edit wars that are taking place on infoboxes and how the "since" date format does make sense and does apply to that. I would generally prefer having the "onward" format on the header for that section mostly because it makes sense and does not tie within confusion of the "1996-present" & "Since 1996" ordeal, plus it was how the pre-decision made while Wikipedia was making the great switch from "1996-present" to the "Since 1996" change. • GunMetal Angel 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Understood, but since and onward say essentially the same thing, and since is the preferred term. Radiopathy •talk• 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Read the above again: "since is the preferred term". No, I did not agree with you. Radiopathy •talk• 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You wrote "and" instead of "but" or "however" which I might add would be the correct word in this case and lead to this confusion. • GunMetal Angel 18:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hawthorne Heights

Hi! I have been recently updating the page Hawthorne Heights (more specifically the section on the upcoming album). I received a message from you, and as you clearly know, I do not have a Wikipedia account. Either way, your message accused me of putting promotional material on the Wikipedia page I refered to above. I just wanted to apologize for editing/inserting the part that talked about the new song "Unforgivable" currently streaming on YouTube, because that clearly is promotional. I do want to mention that I just finnished inserting the official email sent by Hawthorne Heights to fans into their Wikipedia page becuase it is NOT promotional, it is factual information supported by the band, so it is from a direct source and provides helpful information about the upcoming album. I am also quite sure that editing the page to say that Micah Carli has been screaming for the band on their tour could not be considered promotional either. It is likewise simply a fact, and is relevant and helpful information.

If you have any comments, or if I am wrong about anything I stated here, PLEASE message me the same way you did before, or email me at chrisbkoolio@gmail.com. Thank you! =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.104.178 (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sending me a message in reply to this, and for being so respectful in correcting me! I just wanted to add that the part I added about Micah Carli (and clearly other people have added it aswell, because I checked it this morning, and it was up there agian) IS fact. I've seen video of Hawthorne Heights on their current tour, and of Micah providing unclean vocals for the band. I also wanted to add that you refered to him as a 'new member' of the band, but he is not. Lower on the Hawthorne Heights article you can see him in the list of current members, and the role of unclean vocals assigned to him. Considering I am not an avid Wikipedia user, I am not completely sure how to input this information correctly with the required sources, but I hope you can do so, because it is a relevant fact. Once again, thank you so much! If possible, when you reply to this, email me instead of using the other method (although that works aswell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.104.178 (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding again! And, yeah, I'm getting a source for the part about the guitarist (Micah Carli) doing the unclean vocals. I've put that part back in with a proper source. All seems good now. =)

Oh! ps: I'm not using that old IP address anymore, but I do have a wikipedia account now, so you can contact me on my talk page. I won't be checking it everyday (especially since I'm goin on a short vacation soon) but if you have a reply to my last message, just put it on my talk page from now on instead of using the method you were using before. THANK YOU! --Chrisbkoolio (talk) 19:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Underoath nomination

Hi Gunmetal Angel. May I ask why you nominated Underoath at WP:GAN when it's already listed as a good article? If you're looking for a reassessment, WP:GAR would be the place to go. Timmeh 16:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Because it's an awesome band… haha, no that's not the reason, haha. It's actually because I didn't know, I thought there would be a certain type of tag that would appear in the corner of the article to show that the article is within and has been approved as a good article. So I really couldn't tell if it was a part of the good articles or not, which it is. • GunMetal Angel 20:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The star only appears for featured articles. If you take a look at the talk page of the article, there will be a template there that tells you it's a good article. I suggest also taking a look at the instructions on nominating an article if you're planning on nominating another article, so that you know you're doing it correctly. Good luck on your future article work! Timmeh 20:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be sutable and appropriate for there to be a tag on the good articles as well, but I guess it's too late for that now seeing how there's hundreds of good articles. But other than that; I'll be sure to check the talk pages beforehand on making sure that the article already is listed as a good article or not. Thanks for informing me • GunMetal Angel 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want symbols at the top of each article for GAs too, you could propose such an idea here. Who knows, maybe it'll get some traction. Timmeh 20:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

We Butter the Bread with Butter

Hello there. According to this edit, you stated that grindcore and happy hardcore are "fake and ridiculous", where they clearly have Wikipedia articles. I don't see how either of these are fake and ridiculous, although I agree that electrocore and fun-metal are fake. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 ^{other crap} 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean that torwards "grindcore" or "happy hardcore", I meant that torwards "electrocore" and "fun-metal", I know grindcore and happy hardcore actually are genres, but having a bunch of IP adresses adding whatever they want (even making up genres) is bothersome. Even more so, the article for their album refered to them as a "fun deathcore" band, which was extremely ridiculous. There is no "brutal deathcore" and most definately not a "fun deathcore" there is only one type of deathcore, it just kind of bothers me seeing a bunch of kids thinking they know music. • GunMetal Angel 03:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I do agree with that, but I thought the "fake genres" included grind and happy hardcore music. Sorry for the mix up. And I agree. The fake genres like electrocore, fun metal, fun deathcore and brutal deathcore are ridiculous. --ҚЯĀŽΨÇÉV13 ^{other crap} 03:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Owl City

Template:Infobox musical artist suggests not using subgenres such as synthpop and emo on artist pages, and your edits are going against that. On top of that, you're not providing any sources for the synthpop genre (not that that would matter since that shouldn't be used anyway), and I've already said that emo is a subgenre of rock music which should not be used in artist infoboxes. Chase wc⁹¹ 03:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see; alternative is already stated, thus emo doesn't need a statement in the infobox. Thank you for explaining this and sorry for the inconvenience. • GunMetal Angel 04:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And synthpop should be removed too. (1) It's not covered in the source, and (2) pop is already listed. Genres should be generalized as much as possible. Chase wc⁹¹ 04:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah never mind, I see you removed it. Chase wc⁹¹ 04:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed it because I saw the reason why it was removed, once again; thank you for explaining this. • GunMetal Angel 04:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Owl City x2

Hi, I noticed that you reverted my edits to Owl City without explanation. I assume you're thinking that the material added violates WP:BLP and WP:NPOV, but I'd like to hear your specific reasoning, as a look through those two policy pages doesn't find anything in conflict with my edit.

• The gist of BLP is that "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion," which you did, though my edit was quite obviously well-sourced. Furthermore, in accordance with WP:Blp#Criticism_and_praise, my material "can be sourced to reliable secondary sources" and "does not overwhelm the article".
• NPOV states that all content "must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." The material is significant due to the number of published, reliable sources given, and the material is presented fairly, as it states "fact"s about opinions (that publications have accused Owl City of "ripping off") rather than the opinions themselves (saying something like "Owl City ripped off Postal Service"), per WP:ASF. Additionally, it is noted that Adam Young denies "ripping off" Postal Service.
• See also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV (further down on NPOV), which states that "A biased statement violates this policy when it is presented as a fact or the truth. It does not violate this policy when it is presented as an identifiable point of view. It is therefore important to verify it and make every effort possible to add an appropriate citation." It could be argued that saying "Owl City ripped off Postal Service" is a biased statement, but by stating that it has been referred to as such ("[attributing] the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true") is entirely valid.

I look forward to hearing from you. -M.Nelson (talk) 04:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm sorry restore it all back (if you haven't already) I was kind of unsure what the edit was and indetified it as a bunch of disruptances by seeing the genre changes you made thinking you were just some fanboy who likes to change genres on music articles as well as numerous other things (even though nevertheless the genres were changed with a valid reason as explained in the first Owl CIty message above). So yes, you have more than enough reason to have the changes on the article, I'm sorry for mistaking your edit, please restore all of this if you haven't already. • GunMetal Angel 17:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply; I suppose I assumed bad faith myself by assuming bad faith on your part. I stuck my stuff back in just now. Cheers, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)