Talk:Possessed (band)

Still not neutral

Every time I attempt to fix the article, someone changes it back.-70.17.71.215 (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOT NEUTRAL

This article is NOT neutral, it reads like it was written by some crazed fan boy, please consider revision.

Ok, the artical has been revised, it's far more neutral now.

Article still sucks though. LuciferMorgan 09:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

i added a bunch of stuff, is there anything else that I can do??? --Iron bob 07:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The above "bunch of stuff" violated just about every policy Wikipedia has for editing and had to be purged. It's still in bad shape but the version left behind by Iron bob was close to being one of the worst music articles in recent memory. Suggest a reading of WP:POL and all of it's subpages before any more damage is done. 156.34.142.110 12:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, maybe I am just stupid, but I don't see what I did wrong, and would like for you to explain it to me. . . please. I red it and it sounds like you're the one who's violating anything by deleting everything that I wrote without talking to me about it. I got the information from a reliable source, as my references back up and didn't drastically change anything that the last guy wrote, i just added stuff. --Iron bob 18:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Read the sublinks found on WP:POL. WP:CITE (references req'd), WP:V (verifiability), WP:ATT (no original research or stupid fancruft... no adjectives!), WP:AWW (no weasel words), WP:NPOV (neutral point of view... NO opinions!), WP:NOT (a NOT list)+ WP:EL and WP:SPAM for what web links violate Wikipedia policy... MySpace is CRAP, fansites are CRAP, webzine and fanzines like metal-archives = CRAP... no blogs, no chats... none of these types of links can be used for references. Just read, and understand what those policies mean. Then try to follow them when you edit again. 156.34.142.110 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also read WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE as it would seem all of your image uploads are just illegal copyvio. Basically you can only upload pictures you took yourself. Photobucket is banned as a source. Flickr is on the verge of being banned. And if you upload an image with a false or dishonest license tag IE: you lie and say you took it yourself... that's = to vandalism and will get you blocked from editing if you get caught... and most do. 156.34.142.110 19:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

is it really necessary to treat me like crap??? All those are sources that the other guy used as well and you didn't call the previous article:"one of the worst music articles in recent memory." The sources used now are Myspace and a fansite. Wikipedia is a fansite, that doesn't mean that its wrong. The fansite I used got their information from JEFF BECERRA himself, so it isnt incorrect and a bands myspace page wont have any bad info because its maintained by band members. You can't argue history with someone who lived it.--Iron bob 19:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If the pics are bad, then delete them.--Iron bob 19:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't write Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedia is not a fansite, nor is it a soapbox... it is an encyclopedia. Any MySpace links, regardless of whether they are "official" or not are simply not allowed and can be deleted on sight. Fansites are not allowed by declaration of WP:EL. The rule of Wikipedia is... "if you have an opinion... it is of no use here". Only verifiable content is allowed here. It's pretty easy. 156.34.215.210 20:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all, i did not use opinion at all, if you had actually read the article you would have noticed that , second the article as it exists now uses only fansites and a myspace page as its sources (with one exception where it sites Jeff Becerra performin at Waken), so why don't you just delete the whole thing??? If the sources are less than perfect, that does not mean that the information is completely incorrect or that all of it has to be deleted. I've seen longer articles with no sources at all, so is it better if I don't use any references at all. The fansite did include opinion mixed in with the facts but I did my best to separate the two and make the the things that i posted as neutral as possible. If neutrality is the only problem then you could have changed that part of it (take out the "weasel words" or adjectives) instead of deleting the whole thing. Maybe you could tell me what I could do to fix my mistakes so I can fix them instead of treating me like a moron. Just telling me that the article is horrible, biased, etc. without giving me any specific examples or telling me what to do to fix these problems, is not any help at all.--Iron bob 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am going to try to add to this article without using "weasel words" or being biased, i'll try to find some better sources, and if you have a problem with that then maybe you can talk to me about what needs to be changed instead of just telling me that it sucks.--Iron bob 02:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just take it one paragraph at a time. Write it as if a university professor is going to mark it and your entire career depends on it... not as though it is directed at 12 year olds. And follow policy 156.34.215.210 02:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried really hard to be neutral, deleted the picture, and added more credible sources that verify the information. if anything is still wrong with it, i'd love for you to tell me, or fix the problems yourself before you revert it to what it was, thanks.--Iron bob 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempted a preliminary cleanup. Article was riddled with POV and poorly written text.(and still is) More cleanup and copyedit is required. Also, the 'rateyourmusic' and similar crap spamlinks were rm'd and tags added on the more obvious content.References have to come from professional publications, widely published books and respected online websources and news releases. Just a tip Metal-archives is probably the worst online fanzine going and caters to retarded 13 year olds. Only the truly musically impaired read that website and hold it in any value. Besides the odd interview hosted from the site, it's content is pure junk and should be avoided. Most online fanzines(metallian, rockdetector.. etc) are just as bad... or worse and should not be used as references unless it's a last resort. More cleanup can be done tomorrow. 156.34.215.210 04:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The intro thing, does it still need a citation, since i reworded it?--Iron bob 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The 're-word' was weasel words and had to be corrected. A cite is still needed. 156.34.215.210 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Is the sevtion,style, than was labled with the "original research" sticker better now, and if not, what's wrong with it--Iron bob 04:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still reads like original research. Rad WP:ATT to find out what that is. 156.34.215.210 04:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to fix article, its extremely biased, it has a lot of things which are wrong or are just out right untrue and are made by fans.Sindelar 02:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Bad Link

The link for The Eyes of Horror leads back to the main article. Fix this.

The Current Picture

The current picture, with Jeff Becerra playing with the members of Sadistic Intent, should not be up. It should be a picture with the "classic" lineup, Jeff Becerra, Mike Torrao, Larry Lalonde, and Mike Sus. Due to the copyright laws, the lineup as shown in the picture cannot sign a record deal under the name "Possessed" and technically isn't even in the right to perform under the "Possessed" name.

Use of images that violate WP:FAIR

How is a band's article not directly related to their album covers? especially their discography?!--Iron bob 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Wanna tell me why the added info in the intro was undone? Seriously, when anyone reverts something can that person use the talk page instead of just doing it, so they can tell me WHY i'm in the wrong. Cause the way that its being done now isn't helpful at all.--Iron bob 21:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You have to read WP:FAIR. Covers can only be used in articles about the albums themselves. Likewise... screenshots can't be used unless its an article about the source of the screenshot itself. Many Wikipedia administrators(and their edit bots) are currently clean-sweeping the project of all its copyvio image material. Images in dicographies located on band pages are part of the sweep. The weasel worded content was removed because its reference was from an amateur/poor quality fanzine. Please read WP:RS for what constitutes reliable sources. Also, avoid that metal-archives crap page. It only caters to the lowest form of heavy metal fan... the greasy haired/low IQ'd idiot. It should be blacklisted from Wikipedia altogether. 21:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to think that i am able to separate fact from fanboy bullcrap, but if you think that the source and info is invalid, remove it until a more reliable source is found, as far as the pics go remove them if you feel they violate policy. btw thank you for actually responding although the last two sentences weren't entirely necessary. . .--Iron bob 21:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

In 'Wiki's' lofty goal to become a 'pedia' (it's far from that title) it just doesn't make any sense to try and reference content from a website whose average regular reader rates 2 grunts below pea-brain on the IQ scale. I won't question the added content as I believe the band truly are one of the first death metal bands. But surely a cite with more credibilty can be found other than the 'tard page. 156.34.239.61 22:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a lot sources that are probably less than optimal, but since whether a band is the "first" death metal band or not is based largely on opinion; I added sources where Possessed is described as either the first or one of the first death metal bands. Hopefully that shows that Possessed are "often considered" one of the first death metal bands.