User talk:Funeral: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:45, 19 November 2007


*Archive one
*Warnings
*Sandbox
*Awards

Guns N' Roses

The Guns N' Roses article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you think your efforts to improve that article would be aided if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing that article, please let me know and I will protect the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 07:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation on DEP/Gun N' Roses

http://www.decoymusic.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1047

Thats the interview, but i dont know how to cite it. but thats where he says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkosullivan (talk • contribs) 22:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Funeral! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 05:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comma separated genres in Template:Infobox Musical artist

There is no consensus on the lay out of genres. It's a topic that has been discussed quite a few times, and consensus has never been reached. The example in the template documentation is just an example; the guidelines are the rules, not the examples. There are loads of articles featuring line break separated genres, just like the Madonna article, which is an other example used in the documentation. Many musical artist infoboxes on featured articles have line break separated genre lists. These articles are not broken and don't need fixing. "Fixing the infobox" just isn't a good argument to change the lay out. Please don't understand me wrong, I don't care about commas or line breaks - as long as it fits the article. I think that's the best way to approach this issue, until real consensus has been reached. Kameejl ^(Talk) 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued thanks

As always, thanks for keeping an eye on "the lists". I see them pop up a lot... and before I can take the time to browse the damage... you've already done an NN sweep. Thanks again... Cheers and have a nice day! 156.34.142.110 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, and have a nice day too! Funeral 20:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this conversation so many times...

I get the POV deal, okay. However there is also no reason to change line breaks, they've been around for the longest time before people started instituting the comma breaks, and since there is no consensus on it, I use the line break as I believe it looks better.Navnløs 20:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are also instituting POV then. Those pages were fine as they were, for the longest time, with line breaks, then someone came along and decided to change it. Those are unneccesary edits, as it was fine the way it was. So, I protect the pages against unneccesary edits and vandalism. Navnløs 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't want to argue with you, especially when you seem to be knowledgeable about metal and other things. I cannot back down, though, on the belief, that many hold as well, that line breaks are better than comma breaks. I wish there was a consensus on it but everytime it's brought upnobody can figure it out, stupidly and unfortunately enough. So everyone does what they want, and I just happen to want line breaks as I believe they look cleaner since eveything else on the list uses line break. If we use comma breaks on one thing in the music infobox (like genres) then it looks out of place, I believe. Navnløs 21:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not troll. I think it is a valuable tool for an encyclopedia to be understood, yes? Well when you list the genres one by one not only does it match with the other things in the music infobox but it is easier to scan with the eyes. Why would comma breaks be better?Navnløs 21:14, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that makes sense. However, those pages did used to have line breaks, which is why when I just happened to want to look at them I saw they had been changed. Therefore, I reverted them. Like I said, I can't help but believe it is easier on the eyes to view the genres on a one by one basis. Some people try to argue for comma breaks and say that line breaking takes up more room. I respond to them by saying, "more room? Yeah, like a line or two...what's the difference? Everything else in the music infobox uses line breaks, so why should'nt the genres?" To which they usually spout some unintelligble blather about how the line break does "not" look better. Unfortunately, no administrator or anything will decide the situation each time its brought up. Navnløs 21:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese Democracy

What makes you so convinced that Chinese Democracy won't be released in February? And I did cite a reference for the release date a couple days ago, and it was removed by, well... you, like everything else I add.

I didn't see the release date on Amazon. I saw it in a few different articles. Blackzeppelin27 22:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How come this page, 2008 in music, is allowed to say the release date is Feb 11, and you do nothing about editing that? Hmm? Blackzeppelin27 22:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you really don't have much to say now. And by the way, I saw that you filled the number 13 spot on the references for the "2008 in music" page with a random myspace link. I thought you were all about credibility. What happened? Blackzeppelin27 23:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the truth is pointless spam, then so be it. Blackzeppelin27 23:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already knew you thought was spam. There was really no need to link it back to me. Blackzeppelin27 23:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question. How come you deleted Catcher in the Rye from the "confirmed tracks" list? Is it really not confirmed? Blackzeppelin27 03:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catcher in the Rye is just as confirmed as Madagascar and I.R.S. are. They have no sources connected either. Leave it. Blackzeppelin27 20:12, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now they do. Funeral 20:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove Quick Song from the rumored titles? It's included in the Kerrang (1999A), just like all the other songs in the 1999 column. Blackzeppelin27 20:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source it then. Funeral 20:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, the whole chart is sourced, like so - "Rumored titles from Chinese Democracy sessions[8]". Quick Song doesn't need a separate source. Blackzeppelin27 20:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May isn't a good enough source? Blackzeppelin27 21:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brian May hasn't confirmed it will be on Chinese Democracy, I doubt he would know anyway. Funeral 21:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the reference link that was just added for The General under confirmed tracks doesn't work. Blackzeppelin27 00:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took Silkworms and Rhiad and the Bedouins out of the rumored titles chart because under the section "Sound", it says this: "...while "Rhiad and the Bedouins" and "Silkworms" are more influenced by the industrial sound, with synths, drum beats and loops. Dizzy Reed has stated that these two tracks will not be on Chinese Democracy.[9]" Blackzeppelin27 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Dizzy Reed has said Silkworms and Rhiad and the Bedouins won't be on the album, then why are they under rumored titles? The article is inconsistent. Blackzeppelin27 00:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Say something. If you're going to change everything I do, then at least explain why. Blackzeppelin27 03:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert that edit. Funeral 15:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation

Feel free to join into the last section conversation on my talk page. It's getting rather humorous and may wind up being a good place to vent some frustration over certain issues that are building here. :D . 156.34.142.110 19:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting that idiots vandalism. Navnløs 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned once by another user, but they said assume good faith and it was afterward that people realized that the "idiot" in question was a seriousl vandal and troll. Besides an administrator even once told me how he didnt want to put up with vandals' bullshit and said insulting things towards them. lol, but I get the fact that I dont want to use that kind of language loosely. Navnløs 23:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: my opinion

It's a sub of heavy metal. A mention there is proper... but it seems a little bit "too much fine detail" in the parent rock article. Heavy metal can be mentioned in the Rock article and let reader click that link to find their way deeper. At least thats what I think 156.34.228.22 23:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genre delimiters

Hello. You might be interested in giving your opinion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Delimiting_marks_in_Musical_artist_infobox. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I got the tracklistings for the new Buckethead albums through the buckethead.tk forums, which I frequent. Some of the people over there have already gotten their copies, so the tracklistings were posted there.

Just go to the following link to verify it for yourself: http://bucketheadland.proboards19.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=1193862622&page=1

MrTaco 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a minute

The article for thrash metal reads like it was compiled by a 10 year old (it probably was :D ) I started to vacuum the cotton candy out of the "1990s" section but it gave me a headache. Any chance you could go through at least one section and do an "adjective clean" on it? I am simply deleting any uncited descriptives (pretty much 99% of them are junk) Over time, just about every pea-brained metal stereotype on Wikipedia has pierced that article with some sort of POV whether it be praise or disdain. It's not a very long article. Cleaning it up should be easy. But, like I said, every paragraph has a little migrain inducing foolishness injected into it and trying to maintain concentration on it is difficult. Cheers! 156.34.214.237 02:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't do it straight away. Anyway, here's the diff between your last edit and what I've done. [1] Everything fine? Funeral 17:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking better 'n better all the time. Thanks for your help. 156.34.142.110 17:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just ask here if you want me to do anything else. Funeral 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Izzystradlinmiami.jpg

Moved to User talk:Funeral/Image warnings. Funeral 17:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Aaron

That one site hardly gives credit to her being hard rock. Find two sites. Until then, I will not think she is hard rock. The sites given on her wiki page state she is nothing about hard rock. Metal Head 14:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All music Guide meets, and exceeds WP:RS and is used as a reference on almost every Wikipedia article that relates to music. 156.34.142.110 15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I would just like to point out I have not sockpuppets. Yes, I did use that one IP address after I was banned, but that was because, as I told an administrator, I wanted to explain my side about the 3 revert thing on Iron Maiden. Yeah, I also made an edit to Cannibal Corpse, because I was in the middle of making an edit when I was banned, and I don't like leaving things unfinished. Navnløs 19:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username concern

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope not to seem unfriendly or make you feel unwelcome, but I noticed your username, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's username policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here?

I'd appreciate learning your own views, for instance your reasons for wanting this particular name, and what alternative username you might accept that avoids raising this concern.

You have several options freely available to you:

If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it.
If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, such as requesting comments from other Wikipedians. Wikipedia administrators usually abide by agreements reached through this process.
You can keep your contributions history under a new username. Visit Wikipedia:Changing username and follow the guidelines there.

Thank you. This username is a sad username. Would you consider changing your username to a happier name? NHRHS2010 talk 04:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

from someone who's never seen "the bucket". :D I don't suppose it would get any better if you requested a change to NHRHS2010's Funeral :-D . You'll just have to change it to "Floppy Cuddly Bunny Funeral" :D . 156.34.223.178 11:17, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS 25 times I went to rvv some dumb*ss edit here yesterday... and 25 times you beat me to it. As always... keep up the good work. Are you gonna let your sad username stand up for RfA?? The quality of your contributions has you heading in that direction. If it is your goal... then I suggest adding a little time in over at the help desk... keep a watch on other RfA's and AfD's and CfD's and other "vote" type of activities. It all looks good on the "WIki-resume". 156.34.223.178 11:23, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to Buckethead. Read what it says on his Bucket ;-) Btw, I usurped this username a couple of months ago and there were no concerns about it then.

Libs... Will do, but I've not really thought about adminship, to be honest, although I'd probably stand for it if I get the chance to. Also, can you help me out with a troll on Chinese Democracy. Take a look at Talk:Chinese Democracy#Revisiting the "IF" debate. Funeral 17:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help

Check out this guy. Typical fancrufter vandalism... going in and bloating all the sales totals n such for his favourite band. Bon Jovi is protected so I can't edit it. It can basically be rv'd right back to anywhere prior to buddy faboy coming along. Pretty much everyone of his edits can be undone for that matter. Total fanboyism. I can't remember the "don't add false info" warning off the top of my head. I will look it up and give him a gentle(with a hammer) nudge. Thanks. 156.34.142.110 20:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but there's still more sales bloating in the Main Bon Jovi article. Compare yours with one from WAY back before Corny came along. There's a few more stuffed numbers in there. Again... thanks. 156.34.142.110 20:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Funeral 20:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mistake that would fill an arena

Arena rock has been incorrectly added again on the Bon Jovi article. Someone justly took up the cause on the Arena rock article itself about the fact that it's not a genre... or style either... but the "let's bomb Wiki with a thousand make-believe fairy tale genres" crew is leaning the article back to what it isn't. The article, as a whole is horrible. And part of the main problem is that... right off the bat... it has a genre box... which is just wrong. I posted on the Wiki genre projects talk page about that very topis a few days ago. Asked PEJL his opinion too. But he hasn't dug that deep into that area of Wiki's music articles yet and has no opinion. Wiki, right from the get-go... made the error of allowing these "terms" or "style" to be allowed to be called "genre". In the end, when it cames to rock music... only "Rock music" is the actual genre. Heavy metal, punk, southern rock, rockabilly, prog... they're all just styles of the parent genre Rock. I think, unfortunately, that Wiki may have gone to far down the path and the its missing "distinguish between genre and style" may be lost. Which is sad because a project designed to be an encyclopedia... ends up loaded with information that is incorrect. The genre project is one of those "do nothing" projects. I doubt anything will come of my post over there. 156.34.217.117 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. A user(who has a long history of poor quality edits and a case of "musical impairment") completely blew away the old article... and re-did it using a single source... WAY too many times. And the source is shades WP:RS pretty bad as well. Not sure what direction to go with this one. The editor is not a vandal. But he is a very poor editor none-the-same. He has attempted to create fairy-tale genre article in the past. Or, in some cases, re-created articles that had been voted to go the re-direct route because they held no water. A team needs to be drafted to try and salvage a silk purse from a sows ear. 156.34.233.42 03:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the infobox from the arena rock article and added another tag too... And I've reverted the Bon Jovi page. Funeral 17:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Keep an eye on it... as will I... I expect any attempts to push "truth" into the article will result in rv's from "the musically impaired". 156.34.142.110 17:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the watchlist. Can you leave another comment on Talk:Chinese Democracy please? I want to try and get a consensus on "when released" so it can go back in the article. This is the current lead-in, it looks awful: "Chinese Democracy is the name of the long-awaited sixth studio album by the hard rock band Guns N' Roses." Funeral 17:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK now. If you have a chance could you watch Judas Priest for me. Navaloose is edit warring again over the inclusion of a factually incorrect "g" in the box. I added the reasoning on the talk page... its already been beat to death... but... I regurgitated the previous, and valid, arguements against including NWOBHM (a re-direct link to boot)... but... it's falling on musically impaired ears. 156.34.227.140 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll watch the page, but I can't really contribute anything to the talk discussion... I don't know anything about Judas Priest or their genre. Funeral 22:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[2] - Ha, you beat me to it! I reverted his other "if it ain't broken..." as vandalism. He needs to be warned for edit warring, would you agree? Take a quick peek at the Cradle of Filth article history and it's talk page :-| Scarian ^Talk 23:35, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him about breaking the 3RR... He's just one edit away from doing so. Funeral 23:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lib's recommended that we AGF... and I'm hesitant to go through with contacting an admin now... I feel sorry for him in a way, I don't want to discourage him from editing on Wikipedia. Also, you don't just have to 3RR on just one article 3x... it can be showing a habit of recent edit warring which he has (e.g. with the line breaks/commas issue that you and I have dealt with, and on the CoF talk page also). Scarian ^Talk 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW... I actually had my AGF surgically removed and incinerated about 2 years ago. So for me to AGF for anything nowadays I must be feeling particularly kind. and no I'm not drunk... although I feel I may have over-indulged on french vanilla frozen yoghurt. :D Either he will learn, and follow the rules...or he will push policy and be blocked... or we will plummet into sockpuppetry... which, if he does, his modus operandi will trip him up. So... AGF. Besides... 3RR reports are absolute torture to compile and submit and I wouldn't wish that punishment on anyone... I know I won't do one... they're a pain in the a**. 156.34.227.140 01:39, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf, dude. I am not engaged in an edit war. I was talking about the CoF article with some people and they noted one line needed a citation and I accidently added one that wasn't correct anymore. I'm not edit warring. User:The Haunted Angel, the one who was removing my edits even said I could use the same edit if I found a correct citation this time. Navnløs 23:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nav - you did edit war with Haunted when you reverted his reversions. Scarian ^Talk 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I thought Arena rock was bad?...

Check out Album-oriented rock. It seems to be a battle ground for POV, OR, cruft lists and radio station advertising. I wanted to rm the station list but decided just to  it out for now. Those types of lists serve no purpose on Wikipedia other than free advertising for the stations listed. I expect, based on the article edit history that someone will add it back in. probably because they own one of the stations on the list :D There are somedays that I hate Wikipedia. :D 156.34.142.110 14:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could probably do with a re-write too. Speaking of lists... Have you seen the mess on power ballad? Almost daily, people add their favourite songs to the list. Do you think I should get rid of it, make lists of power ballads, or leave it alone? Funeral 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Power ballad being used as a genre has always been a peeve. Not sure about listing since there is a recent anti-list hunt on Wiki against anything that can be replaced by a category (if there isn't a cat. already). I am not against it myself. I am just saying you could go through the trouble only to have it AfD'd. Speaking of which... take a look at Category:Lists of metal bands. Outside of the actual List of heavy metal bands (which is trying hard to be a cited article and a valid resource)... most if not all of those list of X metal bands could be AfD'd and replaced with a category. Want to see a list of "errors"... List of rock genres. How many items on that list aren't really genres? Quite a few. Sorry for rambling away from your original topic. I just feel, when it comes to things like phantom genres and cruft lists and other gaffs related to music... they are all tied to one another. Music articles are one of Wikipedia's weakest links. Unfortunately they attract a lot of "missing links" as editors. :-) Maybe I'm one of them :-D . 156.34.219.206 01:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Power ballads - So do you think I can get rid of "the lists" now? Btw, someone undid you edits on album-oriented rock ... I've reverted it, but keep an eye on it if he does it again. Funeral 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the AOR rv. And yes cats seem to be to new norm. Are you interested in AfD'ing all the "lists" listed in the Category:Lists of metal bands page. An AfD can also be a nomination to create a category(if one doesn't already exist) and then re-direct the page to the cat. Big project... fer sure... I know I would be happy to see a few dozen lists go away. They're just cruft traps. Of course.... the Gibsy Players list is exempt from all that :D . It's actially a resource. There's a big difference between a resource and a useless list. 156.34.219.132 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never started an AfD before so what do I do, do I need to nominate each list individually?.

P.S. [3] - He must own a lot of those stations :-D Funeral 14:21, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. No stations owned. Don't work at a station. Most of those stations don't exist anymore, as least with the AOR format (which is dead). The sweeping deletions were unnecessary and pompous. I was simply reversing them - not "vandalizing" the page. And you did not even propose your deletion on the discussion page. Why don't you engage and collaborate with the contributors... Additionally it was not the list of radio stations or links that I had (or had intended to add back), rather it was a list of songs that I was hoping cold be saved/moved rather than lost to the wind. Cheers DannyRay (talk) 11:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He got notified.

If you do a 'subst:afd' template and just click preview.... the bottom of the template has the instructions. It's all in the wording of the reasoning... and in this case... therehave already been many lists AfD'd simply with the explaination that... the lists are unreferenced, unmanageable due to lack of proper list criteria... listcruft that has no purpose and either duplicates an already existing category... or can easily be replaced by a category if one isn't already in place. I would do it but whenever an anon nominates anything like this... especially this many... inclusionists with anti-anon attitudes will prevail. 156.34.215.218 (talk) 00:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nu metal musicians. I'll see how that goes before AfD'ing the rest. Funeral 13:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. As an anon I can't vote (I can... but it would likely be struck out). The wording was clear and simple and shouldn't meet with too much trouble. Unless, of course, nu metal fans decide to cabal. If anyone opposes you should watch their talk page to see that they weren't prompted to vote a certain way. Collusion is frowned upon and can be reported. 1 (soon to be) down many more to go. 156.34.215.218 (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey.. guess what? You can add another one to that first AfD. I didn;t realise there was also a List of nu metal bands??? Duplicate lists... duplicate AfD's. 156.34.224.2 (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further... that one doesn't even have a lead-in? Wonder how its lasted this long? 156.34.224.2 (talk) 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 159: / Line 159: @@
 Perfect. As an anon I can't vote (I can... but it would likely be struck out). The wording was clear and simple and shouldn't meet with too much trouble. Unless, of course, nu metal fans decide to [[WP:CABAL|cabal]]. If anyone opposes you should watch their talk page to see that they weren't prompted to vote a certain way. Collusion is frowned upon and can be reported. 1 (soon to be) down many more to go. [[Special:Contributions/156.34.215.218|156.34.215.218]] ([[User talk:156.34.215.218|talk]]) 14:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 :Hey.. guess what? You can add another one to that first AfD. I didn;t realise there was also a [[List of nu metal bands]]??? Duplicate lists... duplicate AfD's. [[Special:Contributions/156.34.224.2|156.34.224.2]] ([[User talk:156.34.224.2|talk]]) 02:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
+::Looking further... that one doesn't even have a lead-in? Wonder how its lasted this long? [[Special:Contributions/156.34.224.2|156.34.224.2]] ([[User talk:156.34.224.2|talk]]) 02:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)