User talk:Blackmetalbaz

Archives

User talk:Blackmetalbaz/Archive #1

Greetings! I used to go by the name of Musicaindustrial. Are you still editing Wikipedia? I'm currently working on the Into the Pandemonium. I'll need some help in the near future, I'm planning to turn it into a Good article. Thanks! CalmonTellechea (talk) 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a page on Rebecca Black, who has one song, ever released ever. And yet you consider my band Unstable un-notable here on wikipedia, and had my article deleted. The girl might have a lot of hits, but we have multiple albums, revenue from our album sales, ect. Like I said back in February, the decision to remove Unstable was unfair and wrong. I think it further proves your biased opinions towards local unsigned artists, and discrimination of matierial that goes on wikipedia. I don't understand who gives people like you authority on here, because you're not elping the sight, your nit picking, and discriminating on it. -Makk3232

RE: Lykathe's apprearance in the list of Tech Death bands.

The source I listed was valid. Stop deleting my entry. Furthermore, go listen to their album and tell me it's not a tech death album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.99.10 (talk) 01:04, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baz,

Little question. I added Angeli Di Pietra in the Viking Metal Bands list and they have been removed, while -according to their label (CCP Records)- they are clearly catalogued as Viking/Powerfolk. I even added a reference from a review concerning the album.

see text below

|- | [[Angeli Di Pietra]] | Belgium | 2002 | [[Angeli Di Pietra|Powerfolk]]<ref>{{cite web |author=Matthijssens, Vera |title=''Origin'' review |url=http://www.lordsofmetal.nl/showreview.php?id=13746&lang=en |publisher=Lordsofmetal.nl |accessdate=[[2009-05-08]]}}</ref>

Why is the entry invalid ?

Greetings, Galatorn (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baz,

Thanks for your explanation. I'm afraid that these days, Webzine's are a bands only form of reviews, as almost all printed mags are going bankrupt or switching to E-zines. So you will find a sh*tload of online reviews and references to Angeli Di Pietra, but few printed. And as I can see, most of the references in the list are webzines...

What would be a good reference to this cause ?

Greetings, Galatorn (talk) 10:23, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Baz,

I added a bunch of references to the Angeli Di Pietra page. I hope they're sufficient material to remove the "general notability guideline" rule ? If not, please send me a note, so that I can add more/other refs. Thanks, Galatorn (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baz, I'm afraid I don't have that much experience in those kinds of matters. I have felt that there was a whole drawer of socks (esp. Black Pauk) involved in the editing of that article (and your talk page), but I don't know how to go about proving that. BTW, I totally forgot about that AfD after my initial comment, sorry about that. BTW, that's a nice article, on Diaboli. I just rolled back the edit made by that probable sock in the black metal article, and I think that at the very least a 3RR block is called for. I don't know--perhaps we should wait and see, for right now, to find out how disruptive they are before we start a full-scale investigation. But I'll find a friendly admin to look into the triple revert here, and I'll do that right now. Oh, I need to get back to you on pagan metal, the AfD for which left a bad taste in my mouth, and I would have but I've been busy with bacon, recent change patrol, and Kronos Quartet (and check out Kronos Quartet discography, now a Featured List). Hey, it's Friday night where you're at--don't you need to run out and get a beer before the pubs close? Take care, Drmies (talk) 18:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait, they're not at 3 yet. I'll add it to my watchlist. Who knows, maybe there's a sock to do it, in which case I'll have to change tack. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, they're reported. Sheesh what a hassle! Esp. if one's internet connection keeps going in and out. BTW, on pagan metal, I am leaning towards a merge now, but, like I said at the AfD, as long as (some of) those sources remain. I'll get back to you and the other AfD contributors on that. BTW, I've been listening to Grand Declaration of War and find it a little dull. Hey, have fun tonight! Drmies (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a message at Drmies's talk page.

• I've dropped the admin a line. Drmies (talk) 14:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI I had left a note on Black pauk1488's talk page regarding restoring deleted material and ownership of articles before you responded on the Lucifugum talk page. --kelapstick (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blackmetalbaz! Please help me with saving Lucifugum article. I’m sure you know this band is not less notable than Clandestine Blaze, Deathspell Omega and Xasthur. You’re the user with a big experience and if you help me I’ll be grateful. I’ve made some mistakes, I know, but all this is just because of my wish to save the page of band which deserves it.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 23:05, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, Google translate is a great thing, I guess. And not all foreign wikis have very rigorous standards. The German WP claims they do, but I don't buy it. As for pornogrind, I'll have a look--but it seems a bit distasteful to me. Oh, Grand Declaration of War? To each his own, I imagine...sorry, that's not mine. I've been listening to Kronos Quartet in the car, mixed in with a bit of Mütiilation. A student of mine burned me some Muse and In Flames--and they're channeling Radiohead and Iron Maiden, respectively. I'd rather listen to the original. OK, now on to porncore, or whatever it was called. Have a nice weekend! I'll be home, reading A Room of One's Own and The Hobbit. ;) Drmies (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kelapstick (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if you'd take a look at [1] [2] [3] With regards to Lucifugum. It's not much, but I'm just curious. HJMitchell You rang? 00:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry- more musings on my talk page HJMitchell You rang? 01:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey HJ, the second and third link lead to article that have material from earlier versions of the Wikipedia article--not independent sources. Drmies (talk) 02:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The third link ([4])is to independent and reliable, not user edited source. I used info from there when created Lucifugum article in May, 2008. The last update on librariusmetallicus was on February, 2008. So, it's not "cut and paste" source.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 21:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 1488 is too obscure to be a username problem. There will be heaps of usernames with POV embedded. It gives you a clue as to the user. We look at the actions and use the WP:AGF Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Baz, sorry, I didn't see that message on my talk until just now. I do think you're right--and I do think it will be very hard to make the case. Drmies (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Great job with the Assück article. The grindcore GA nomination seems to have some kind of snag. I'm not getting any more responses from Wandalstouring, though I think the page is up to snuff. I don't know if we need a second opinion or what. I'd really appreciate any help on this. Aryder779 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh...Drink Vagina Soup Or Die? As the preacher said in Blazing Saddles, "Son, you're on your own." Drmies (talk) 16:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see someone else is out there cleaning up the massive mess that are music genre articles on Wikipedia.Ridernyc (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should not template established editors like you did here during a content dispute. This is merely a content dispute, and the edit was not vandalism as you described in the edit summary. The only thing you will accomplish by misusing templates, and calling good-faith edits vandalism is to further inflame the situation. Calling someone editing in good-faith a vandal is very rude. Landon1980 (talk) 02:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I figured you were aware of it, hence the word "remind." You are edit warring, all there is to it. I never said you violated 3RR, and why you are taking offense to this is beyond me. I ran across your contribs and noticed you were calling several non-vandalism edits vandalism, and even templating other established users, so I left you a note, then I realized you were continuing to edit war. Landon1980 (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts in the span of 24 hours is considered edit warring by most. Landon1980 (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look at what exactly is going one over there. I just read your last post on my talk. Landon1980 (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For now I have reverted, as they appear to be well-sourced, also I see no consensus to keep these bands out like he is claiming. Ibaranoff has quite a history, if he continues I will deal with it by reporting to the appropriate venue. He is on a very short leash regarding these types of edits, or well editing in general. Landon1980 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to apologize if I rubbed you the wrong way, as that was not my intention. I should have looked into the situation better, and upon further review I see you have done a lot of work here recently with adding sources and rescuing it from a possible deletion. Let me know if I can help out with anything. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been repeatedly explained that one source, or a few sources are not sufficient enough when the overall level of sources does not back up that fact. Let's say that one person were to accuse a major politician of committing necrophilia. Without enough evidence to back that person's claims up, they cannot be taken seriously. What we're looking for here is verifiability, not truth. What you consider to be fact is not what we're allowed to post. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • The coverage is trivial if it is sporadically termed by individuals of questionable importance. As I've repeatedly stated, what appears in any given article is not a reflection of the "facts", just what is sourced. This single author is not sufficient enough to source any one genre. And I should point out that in the cases of bands whose articles that no one has devoted any time to researching or editing, you may take it upon yourself to find enough sources to establish the content. And I am fully aware that "alternative metal" in some cases is used in place of "nu metal". Some writers also confuse "rap metal" with "nu metal", or "post-grunge" with "nu metal", or "industrial metal" with "nu metal", or "hardcore" with "nu metal", or "groove metal" with "nu metal". In many instances, the use of any given genre term towards any given musical artist may appear vague or inconsistent. That's why we have to look for the best-sourced content. And in the case of System of a Down, there is a problem, because through the research that has been done on the band, it was established that "experimental" and "progressive" popped up more often than "nu metal" in describing the band. Furthermore, when a band such as Hed PE is not generally considered to be any genre of metal or heavy metal, there is no reason to list that band on a page describing metal. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I'm working on getting this straightened out. I'll comment further on the article's talk page later this evening. Cheers, Landon1980 (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question though, why do you want Ibaranoff's user-page to be a non-working, red link on my talk page? It is Ibaranoff24, not Ibanaroff24. Landon1980 (talk) 23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Nocte Obducta are notable enough to have an article, also, what's the deal with dark metal? I see it pop up in genre boxes every now and then, but it just redirects to black metal. Is it a genre (I 've never heard of it outside of wikipedia) ? I noticed that the German wiki has an article on both, but I can't read a word of German. 86.46.221.21 (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, there is a dark metal article (must be new). 86.46.221.21 (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baz, do you care to weigh in on this AfD? Esradekan Gibb and the wub disagree with my nomination--neither with, in my opinion, enough evidence to see the article as encyclopedically notable, but I could be wrong, and maybe three maybes make a yes. If you say keep also, then it's three heavy-weights to one light-weight, and I'll gladly withdraw the nomination. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aparently brutal death metal does not exactly qualify as a steady genre (or a genre at all for that matter) according to you and several others from the major discussion that has appeared out of it, if this is so would you mind helping out with the Nile (band) article and their discography? — GunMetal Angel 21:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin Metal (3rd nomination). Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And have a look at this: User:Drmies/Sandbox. What a fun job. I can't believe you came up with sources for all of them. Drmies (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been AFK for a bit, I moderate on Discogs, Rate Your Music, and I write for Metallum. (Damn time consuming is what it is) Anyways, I saw that Lucifugum got deleted, and thanks to people using my talk page as a battleground I'd like to know the real reason behind it. If I remember right, they have released multiped releases on Drakkar. That would put them into a notable standpoint. Also, if they released stuff on blackmetal.com's label, I can almost guarentee that they have many reviews out. Now, I'm not trying to attack anyone here, but in the future, please put a notification on my page or on the black metal page when something big is up for deletion. It's not a canvas deal, especially when the rescue squad does the exact same thing. I made the black metal project to help out with many things metal related and Lucifugum was one of the bigger ones. I'll help bring the article to notable standards, because when I looked at it, it was not sourced the way it should have been. I'll fix that later. Thanks. Undead Warrior (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Terrorizer, it’s just a problem of their competence. This band is impossible to miss, especially in East European scene. Especially for competent mass media. As far as I know, Lucifugum refused of interviews to some major magazines. May be, Terrorizer was among them, and it’s a kind of a “revenge”. As for this: "they are still going despite personal difficulties"… he-he, band with “personal difficulties” making an album each year… it’s a phenomenon. He-he, Terrorizer is amazing.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Baz! I know that Terrorizer is a world-wide known and very well selling magazine, I’m not a kid or crazy guy. I just mean that if they don’t know (or just pretend that don’t know) that Lucifugum is one of the most known East European black metal bands and give them just a half of a sentence of 3 pages they don’t look terribly competent in this subject. Just in this subject, I don’t talk about their whole competence. Don’t you agree? As for the album a year on own label: Lucifugum is a self-releasing band just last 5 years (of 15 years existence). And it doesn’t make them less notable than they were in past. In interviews they explained their decision to make self-releases. It’s just because of a disappointment in labels which didn’t keep their word and promises (but NOT because of lack of interest to the band). “Vector 33” (the first album of female fronted Lucifugum) was planned to be released on Drakkar prod., but Drakkar didn’t release it in due time. That’s why Lucifugum have canceled the deal with Drakkar and released “Vector 33” cd by themselves. It was the first Propaganda cd release. Also in Lucifugum interviews I read that they don’t exclude the cooperation with labels in future if they find a noble label with honest principles. By the way, “Stigma Egoism” on Drakkar prod. is not a re-release, this is the first (and last at the moment) cd edition of this album (Propaganda released just tape version). Also Lucifugum released in 2003 two albums on BlackMetal.Com on cd format (a big independent American label with many releases and good financial might). I mean a critery for musicans, Lucifugum released 3 albums on big indie labels. P.S. They record an album a year (or almost a year) not just now, in early times they did the same things. Just look at their discography, they really work hard. By the way, my 1488 really means nothing, just nothing, believe you me or not. Thanks for your time and all the best. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's with your edit where you're actually lowercasing the "F" on DragonForce? I didn't mean to revert it in bad faith or anything but that seriously made no sense. For a long time I always noticed how people would miss captalizing the letter in the middle of a word, it's proper grammar, some words (for example DragonForce, PlayStation and YouTube... ect.) have a letter capatalized in the middle of the word, because that's just how it's written. Your edit was reverted a second time, but not by me. — GunMetal Angel 19:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. I understand why, but DragonForce has their name wirtten like that because that's just the plain why it is written, Korn, Slipknot or Mudvayne being typset as KoRn SlipKnoT or MuDvAyNe is ridiculous at that, it's mostly kids attempting to mimic the band's logo. DragonForce on the other hand is typed with a capital "F" not to mimic a type of logo or show fanning, it's the correct way to have their name stated in text just as to the same reason why PlayStation has a capital "S" in the middle of it. • GunMetal Angel 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to restore the real name and MusicMight reference here, but I'm not sure that we can treat MM as a reliable source any more since it has become editable in much the same way as EM. It's a shame as it has been a decent source for a lot of articles.--Michig (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely that the real name should be included. Having created an account at MusicMight it seems that the actual biographies can't be edited, so they should still be ok as reliable sources. Other sections such as members and releases can be edited but are moderated so we'll have to see how that goes. I have no objection to MM being used as a reliable source at present.--Michig (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perseo Miranda. I don't know the guy, doesn't look very notable, but I feel this strange kinship...old...undervalued...metal...can you save him? Drmies (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Solino has been listed at The Genre Troll reporting list for a very long time. He took a bit of a hiatus. But has returned. Still a single purpose account. A soon-to-be-blocked account. The Real Libs-speak politely 13:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this edit? It's a serious question I'd like to ask that person if I could, but seriously, how can you hate something that isn't even real? • GunMetal Angel 00:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know what you mean, it's all about sources, that's what people don't understand. I use Wikipedia because it's the only endless base of infinite information ever established. People don't rely on it because basic people (mostly ignorant ones at that) would be like "I don't use that website, people can change or write whatever they want" when this is completely false. Wikipedia in short are articles composed of all the true, reliable information found possible all put together onto one article about that subject, at least college professors understand that, because I actually found some of them using Wikipedia at their desk or have articles printed out now and then. And plus anything that IP addresses write, are reverted almost 70% of the time, anyway. -- GunMetal Angel 17:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it a little odd that you accuse a source of being unreliable, yet some of the links already on the above page consist of album reviews (Allmusic reviews called Static X thrash metal and Tool death metal) or dead links, which don't have any reliability AT ALL. In addition, plenty of Google search strings point to Necrophobic as being melodic death or melodic black/death, so there's not much of a debate here - we might as well remove At The Gates and Dissection, too - same exact style. --Danteferno (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting/ironic how you answered to very few of the above points - instead, you dictated Wikipedia policy in a matter where it really doesn't apply, and actually appears a little hypocritical. So, I'll elaborate: Allmusic reviews are used in the above page as genre sources. Allmusic reviews ARE NOT a reliable source of genre information. For example, the website reviews called Static X thrash metal and Tool death metal. I don't think any of us are going to rush to put those genres in those band pages, because it's not true. Perhaps it is you who should read up on Wikipedia policy, particularly on the Wikipedia policy of page ownership? Judging by the page history, it appears you've been treating the above article as personal fiefdom.--Danteferno (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using an edit summary to state another user needs to "read up" on rules also falls under WP:CIVIL. Back to the topic: Do you really think Allmusic is a reliable 3rd Party source with the above facts presented to you? Also, please see the talk page for the above article.--Danteferno (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this isn't very WP:CIVIL civil (or true) either: [5]--Danteferno (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on List of nu metal bands. Thank you.--猛禽22 ^•• 21:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to sound rude, but the fact that i had three references that Job for a Cowboy is abbreviated JFAC (including the official band website), and that abbreviations are featured on several other pages, I believe it is significant enough to be added. The Wikipedia rules state that "encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and I had verifications.--Krazycev 13 15:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Would you care to explain the difference between "death metal" that is "very technichal" and technichal death metal. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 08:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a decision to remove the genres from their first two albums, in the consideration of me being an Underoath fan I've seen numerous soucres stating they had a completely different musical style than their current metalcore style back then, until a solid source is found for the genres of these albums, no genre will be stated. This will also slim down the vandalism that is occuring on there. Is this okay with you? • GunMetal Angel 03:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Err, response? • GunMetal Angel 03:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just wanted to make sure if you were. -- GunMetal Angel 16:18, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackmetalbaz, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Grievantee Productions - a page you tagged - because: Have produced records from bands with articles, is a credible assertion of notability. PROD or take to AFD. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. GedUK  20:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This edit meets the requirements at Template:Infobox musical artist?--Cannibaloki 01:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, damn, sorry about this, erase it if you want please, but you removed the source that I putted as a source for Soul Embraced on "List of death metal bands". Why? (JoaquimMetalhead (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You have been warned repeatedly about this. This has been discussed by administrators. The citations you added don't source what is cited. If you continue to edit in this way, YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, you say that according to the WP:MOS the second D in DevilDriver is not capitalized? Can you show me where it says this? Because everywhere (on their WP page, on their logo, on their site, etc.) it has the second D capitalized. That is how the name is spelled. yes (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see this, but it is not just their logo, or album artwork, but themselves that call them that too. See on their official site how the article headlines have it spelled that way. yes (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I believe you and I haven't really talked together all that much on this site, but you seem to be a very good editor in your field. I have noticed that we both have been attacked several times personally by Ibarnoff24. I believe this has been going on for too long. He is also constantly removing source info. RG (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See what stunning terms of endearment Mr. Ibaranoff has for us today? RG (talk)03:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic black metal is "not a real" genre, huh? Then why does the MusicMight page/link mention it, and why is it a genre MusicMight page uses to categorize bands, including Agathodaimon (band)? And please tell me how Agathodaimon (band) is straight "black metal", compared to bands that play the genre in its purist form. Are Dimmu Borgir and Old Man's Child just plain black metal, too? --Danteferno (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "consensus"? Please tell me! There's nothing in the above band's talk page, it's really just you pushing your POV, and looking at your own talk page, it seems you do this on other articles with other editors! --Danteferno (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "melodic black metal" page wasn't deleted, it was redirected to the black metal article, and that was the consensus. You still haven't answered my question: Please explain how Agathodaimon are pure "black metal". They've been tagged as melodic black metal AND symphonic black metal (which has its own article) by reliable sources and you seem to be the only person who thinks otherwise. --Danteferno (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, Allmusic states the band uses the above elements, including gothic metal, in a review of one of the band's albums:

Agathodaimon were in the midst of a sonic metamorphosis that saw portions of their harsher black metal qualities supplanted by more sedate goth and dark metal overtones, causing some understandably mixed reactions from their acolytes. And in a move that's sure to prove just as divisive, Agathodaimon's ongoing creative shape-shifting sees Phoenix generally confining the symphonic orchestration that was once so integral to the group's sonic aesthetic to a supporting or background role [6]

There's nary any more debate at this point. To prevent 3RR, I'll be putting melodic black and gothic metal back in the article in a few days; if you revert, then it's not only POV pushing but also blanking of sourced information. --Danteferno (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And wait, it just gets better: there are more off-site references that prove the above band isn't plain "black metal" They're also listed as black metal AND gothic metal here, a site which (coincidentally) is also used as references on the List of melodic death metal bands page, an article you also seem keen on "enforcing" with references. If the above site link (or Allmusic) isn't "good enough" to you and you revert, I'm gonna start to wonder why those same sites are used repeatedly on the latter band list article.--Danteferno (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objections? --Danteferno (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your last edit to the article, I guess there's no more objections then. Look, as far as these back-and-forth missives and reverts go between you and I, let's make this incident the last, OK? Wikipedia gives editors the option to include "^{[citation needed]}" or templates seeking more info. Outright removal of content should only be relegated to stop obvious vandal edits or edits with obviously INCORRECT information (i.e., if someone added Avenged Sevenfold to the melodic death metal bands list), you know, stuff that doesn't require any debate. Or if something might be in dispute as truthful, sure. But in this case you apparently agreed with all the points I mentioned, it was just an issue regarding the source - so rather than revert, why not pursue independent research OR add a temporary "^{[citation needed]}" tag? There are certainly topics that require prolonged debates; band genres, however, shouldn't be one of them. Ciao, --Danteferno (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing their article and deleting technical death metal from the genre list. I'm new and don't know how to make citations, but I have listed three sources in their discussion page that you can add if you'd like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axeforhire (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackmetalbaz, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

Hey guy, I need your help with this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deftones&action=history, the user Hsxeric said that Musicmight isn't a reliable source, and removed my edit. What shoud I say to him, about the reliablity of this source? Thanx (ReisPacheco (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Why did you remove my comment from your page? What was the reason for that? Creation7689 (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that speedy deletion thing. My brother was messing with my wikipedia. Creation7689 (talk) 17:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wykked Wytch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wykked Wytch. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors agreed on the talk page that bands shouldn't be added to the list on the basis of one or two sources. (Sugar Bear (talk) 22:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• As repeatedly stated, other sources contradict the inclusions you added back into the article. (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

As you well know, Cannibal Corpse are not technical death metal. You are preventing me from improving wikipedia by labelling me a genre warrior. You have not edited Cannibal Corpse as you know it is wrong. If you do so, I will reluctantly stop the reverts. Syxxpackid420 (talk) 22:07, 5 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Syxxpackid420 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Blackmetalbaz!

I know this is an old post of yours, but I wonder if you could help me with this diff of yours? Why do you think glbtq.com isn't a reliable source? My understanding of WP:RS (which is probably not complete) is that the site references other sources well, and has editorial oversight - is there something I'm missing? I've used them on other articles, so I'm asking mostly so I can understand when to use them and when not.

Thanks for your help! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ping? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 04:40, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i found one at www.metal-observer.com but it turns out this website is on a blacklist why is that? Syxxpackid420 (talk) 20:58, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock #1851657 lifted. Sorry about that! Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I remember reading the "Ibaranoff incident" a while back; I had no idea Sugar Bear and Ibaranoff were one in the same (though, with hindsight, it seems rather obvious). Anyway, I would try and suggest something that could settle this, but I don't really know what to do. Usually, I'm fine with what reliable sources say, but I'm extremely uncomfortable with Tool's placement on the list. I suppose it's personal bias, but still, I find it slightly warped that Tool are on the list when Mushroomhead, frequently considered one of the "definite" nu metal bands, are not. (If I find a source citing Mushroomhead as nu metal, I'll add it.)

However, I really don't want to take a side in this anymore. Tool's placement suggests to me that sticking to sources has potentially gone too far; on the other hand, Sugar Bear's been engaging in some very childish behaviour which is prolonging this rather than ending it quickly, and I find it hard to take his side in this matter. Perhaps we could work out a compromise of sorts? --LordNecronus (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Please stop editing against the consensus and sources. The consensus and sources are very clear. Do not add sources that do not back up what they are intended to verify, or edit against user consensus. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
  • Consensus would be here. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    • I don't understand your viewpoint. You yourself porclaim that you are not an expert on this genre, yet you are overtly eager to add bands even when the sources and consensus disagree with your inclusions, even going as far as to state that you do not see a consensus. Furthermore, it's not as if all of the citations added are books that are difficult for some editors to acquire. The Allmusic review of Incubus' Morning View, which you added to cite for the band supposedly belonging to this genre actually states that they were lumped into a genre that they were not a part of, not that they belonged to the genre. If the fact that multiple editors agree that bands with citations that do not back up what is cited, or where other sources conflict with the statement of one source should be removed doesn't confirm to your idea of a consensus, then perhaps another opinion is needed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• The sources you pointed out for Incubus and Hed PE do not explictly identify them as nu metal bands. And MusicMight is user-written. (Sugar Bear (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Tarring and feathering may be appropriate...but tough to do via a computer. Is the comment in reference to the Kid Rock or Nu metal discussion (or both). J04n(talk page) 19:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all mention of genre should be removed from Wikipedia :) J04n(talk page) 19:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

instead of deleting the heading, why not actually answer my question and point?   I asked you (and you have yet to answer) if it's not a "zombie"-like vocal effect, or an emulating of the imagined sounds of mystical figures and characters, then WHAT EXACTLY specifically is the "death growl" trying to imitate or simulate?   What is the per se actual purpose of it?

The ONLY reason I'm harping on this point is because NOWHERE in this article is it actually stated anywhere what the "death growl" is supposedly supposedly to be emulating.

If it's not a sort of "living dead" or "zombie" sound, in a sense, then do you have any other explanation?   Why are you being rude and dissing and ignoring the point and the question?

If you're harping on the "source" then why not leave it unsourced with a "citation needed" tag, just like OTHER statements in the article have it?   Yet those other statements are NOT being deleted.   What is the big issue with this specific point anyway?   You don't LIKE the idea maybe that the "death growl" is supposed to be a "zombie" voice effect?   I don't understand.   Why are people throwing a fit over this statement?   Can you finally explain what's up here?   BEFORE maybe deleting this heading?

ok, bro

I saw what you wrote.   Remember....I did not say only "zombies" but also "mystical characters" and "beasts" didn't I?   But as far as the whole "zombie" vocals or "living dead" thing, I'm really not sure how that's objectionable, given the fact that (lol) it's called a "DEATH" growl.   Why is it even called that?   You know "death" growl?

And why do many of the themes and songs and lyrics and imagery in death metal deal with zombie like figures or zombies, etc? (Cannibal Corpse being a classic and obvious example).   I really meant no damage or anything in putting this in there, but rather just for further clarification and explanation and elaboration.   That was it.

Can you honestly say to me, for example, that Cannibal Corpse at least is not in a sense trying to sound like imagined "zombies" or something similar, with their vocal effects?  Again, to repeat, it's called a death growl.   I thought the point was obvious even without an actual citation.

But also, I did say "other mystical figures" too.   Not just zombies, necessarily.   Peace out....151.202.35.85 (talk) 21:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At what point do you take this to ANI? Drmies (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Wykked Wytch. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wykked Wytch (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the same templates you used on list of nu metal bands for list of rap rock bands. Any idea why your list is correctly formatted and mine isn't? (Sugar Bear (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I've found this source that seems to call Gojira tech-death; is it a reliable enough source for me to add Gojira to the list of tech-death bands? I'm useless when it comes to identifying reliable sources. --LordNecronus (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you obviously didn't read the source it says they are not a death metal band but a metalcore band Syxxpackid420 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It actually says they have elements of techdeath but it doesn't really matter. I suggest you read WP:CIVIL Syxxpackid420 (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baz. I was recently having a conversation with Drmies on the issues of the groove metal article and he mentioned that you might be well versed in the subject. The term isn't really in wide use and it has some notability problems. Your thoughts? RG (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...I'm wondering why I shouldn't include a link to Encyclopaedia Metallum on a band's article. Bands such as Vlad Tepes have a link to it on their articles, and that's why I included it on the Lightning Swords of Death article. I'm not arguing with it, because I really don't care about that site...I'm just curious. rzrscm (talk) 23:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah...Thanks for telling me...I'll be removing it from other band's articles if I see it. rzrscm (talk) 05:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to share your thoughts on the matter at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Satan (book) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.72.179 (talk) 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Baz. I know you had your conflicts with Sugar Bear and I think your opinion might be valued here. RG (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you removed Pero Defformero from the list of folk metal bands and artists. What is the problem with this band? Ostalocutanje (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that. My question actually is: what's the problem with the source? Ostalocutanje (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found something strange while looking through the history of the doom metal article. Ages ago, an anonymous editor tried to use an article I wrote myself as a reliable source for blackened doom metal (here). I find it rather hilarious that they did this, but on a serious note, thanks for removing it. Using a TV Tropes page as a reliable source is one thing; using a TV Tropes page written by a Wikipedia editor as a reliable source is another. --LordNecronus (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baz, if you have a minute, follow me to User_talk:Drmies#Seasons_of_Tragedy. Maybe you can have a look at the band's site and see if any of those zines/sites/etc. are notable enough. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackmetalbaz,

I've changed the content of "List of Maryland music people" back to the way it was before I tried to update the information which you found to be not notable. Beleive me when I tell you, it is notable and was in there prior to me trying to update it. So, I hope you don't go and remove it again.

Thanks,

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodoftheancients (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,

I'm happy that there is someone out there policing this site but both the band Exmortis and the band Shockwerks did work for Dwell and Vitamin Records which are connected to CMH Records. I'm not sure why you are removing everything (and I mean everything) I update but please contact me at [email protected] and I'll explain everything to you completely. I'm not just name droping as everything I'm writing is fitting to the content I'm updating. Please tell me what I need to do to prove that to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bloodoftheancients (talk • contribs) 16:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmetalbaz, I was trying to get The 3rd and the Mortal removed from the death/doom article but the edit was undone because of a reference in Terrorizer: "Doom/Death & Gothic Metal Top Ten: The Third and the Mortal, Tears Laid in Earth". My main problem with the band's addition to the list is that they don't fit the description on top of the death/doom article: "It combines the slow tempos and pessimistic or depressive mood of doom metal with the deep growling vocals and double kick drumming of death metal." Now The 3rd and the Mortal did use slow tempos and depressive moods but no growling vocals or double kick drumming. Also, the band's own Wikipedia article makes no mention of 'death/doom' whatsoever. Doom is mentioned and they are called "forerunners of the atmospheric metal scene". I can understand why Terrorizer would label them 'gothic metal', however wrongly, because they did have a big influence on that genre. On what basis should the band remain on the death/doom list? 86.93.91.43 (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Misha[reply]

Why is it that every time I get a note from you, someone ends up getting an indefinite block? BTW, I met your cousin, User:Blackmetlabaz, and he's nothing like you. But I guess he won't be around for long. Toodles, Drmies (talk) 04:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have another fan User:Blackmetallbaz-Regancy42 (talk) 11:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please explain what is WP:VANDALISM about this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beno%C3%AEt_Mandelbrot&diff=391221851&oldid=391218804 , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, there appears to have been an edit conflict... the vandalism I was trying to remove was the "he secretly liked Nazis" bit; the recent death tag removal is not vandalism, although inappropriate, particularly given the above Nazi addition from an IP. 12:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Ok thanks. I think the IP edit is reflective of the removal of all protection from the article and if it is repeated I suggest semi protection. As for the death, it is a simple issue and the template has little value imo but it is easy to leave it there for another day or two, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 12:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my addition in grindcore about Skin Chamber being influenced by the likes of Carcass and Napalm Death deleted? I provided a source!--124.184.91.185 (talk) 12:04, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source is valid and you removed it then said it's "unsourced". I have no idea who you're accusing of being a sock puppet on Act of Depression in this edit], but please be careful. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Baz, how are you? Favor? Have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sacred Oath--an editor added some sources, and you know me, I think all those metal sources are 'sources.' But you know this stuff better than I do, so please weigh in. Take care, Drmies (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there,

I know you must be a very busy person, but as I am fairly new to editing Wikipedia, and you are a stickler for reliable sources, would you mind checking the sources of some articles that I have worked on and/or created? Links: Kekal, Altera Enigma, Jefray Arwadi, Jason De Ron, Leo Setiawan, Didi Priyadi, Azhar Levi Sianturi. Also, can you check the albums for Kekal?

Thanks, --3family6 00:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 3family6 (talk • contribs)

STOP initiating genre war edits with me. You've already been warned about this by myself and also a Wiki admin. Please read the sources thoroughly and stop pushing your POV in articles! Blanking information that is backed up by a source is vandalism and a violation of Wikipedia policy. (P.S. - did you have a previous user i.d. on here by the name of User:Leyasu, by chance?) Danteferno (talk) 15:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your edits per Danteferno. I would highly suggest discussing edits in talk pages and not in edit summaries. This is an example of what I mean. That is a heck of alot of talking in edit summaries. Giving a reason is one thing. Saying things like "No, it definitely doesn't! We never use what bands say about their own music! We use journalists!" is quite another. I'd much rather see edit summaries like that in user talk pages than in edit summaries. In user talk pages, it can create a useful discussion. In edit summaries, it tends to bring about flame wars. --User:Woohookitty ^{Disamming fool!} 10:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you reduced the description of goregrind from "gore and filth" to just "gore". While most people will get the general picture, technically gore doesn't cover the whole range, since gore just means "blood" or "murder and bloodshed" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gore). You may think this is nitpicking... but goregrind also has a lot of songs about filthy stuff other than blood and bloodshed, like faeces, embryo's, dead bodies, bodily fluids, you name it. That's why I typed "gore and filth". ;) RagingR2 (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of people have already determined that consensus has been reached on removing Kesha. Please don't revert again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.130.250 (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a reply with my findings on use of flagicons in lists posted on Talk:List of Christian metal bands#Flagicons. Please take a look.--3family6 (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

let's get this solved, once and for all.

I get the stubborn thing... it's difficult to admit that you made a mistake, especially when someone else is at fault. i, and everyone else in wikipedia, doesn't hold it against you than you had false information... you can't be held accountable for the mistakes of others.

that mistake was: someone somewhere on the internet listed dying fetus as hardcore. fine... their mistake. not yours, and we don't hold that against you. it would be unfair and immature for me or anyone else to blame you for repeating false information. there's a saying, "don't blame the blind if someone told them the sky is red." i think it's a german thing. point is, we're all lied to now and then, and it's more important to find the truth than to begrudge the falsely informed.

Dying Fetus is not a hardcore band. they never have been. ever. If you want all their music, i will happily send it to you. they're an amazing band, every song is a complex piece of metal artwork, and John loves his music being spread to new potential fans. i have followed them from day one, when they were playing shows for 50$ a night at ottobar and the vault back in '93.

get in touch with me outside of wikipedia, and i'll tell you anything you need to know about dying fetus and misery index. they're all close friends, and i know what they want disclosed and what they don't. do a search on darklyrics.com for "structures of death" by Fleshcrawl and find me under them... just remember, i'm a gmx.de user. you'll know what to do.

in the end, we're both metal fans. one of us has been given false information, and the other knows the actual band personally. we're clansmen aligned against all the bad music out there today... let's do what's right for Dying Fetus, and the rest of the great band out there... not what petty garbage has befallen us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.125.204 (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dying Fetus makes no mention of any hardcore sound or influence anywhere on their website, and they THEMSELVES have no background at all in hardcore punk. Eric did, but he was only in the band for about a year and a half, and even that is only to a minor extent - he was in a band in highschool that did a few minor threat covers, but they were primarily a thrash / crossover thrash band. and beyond that, you and i both know all too well that the internet if full or bull. i have seen Motley Crue and Poison both listed as thrash, In Flames listed as Power Metal, and Cannibal Corpse listed has hard rock. you know the kind of people who write reviews about music... you've probably yelled at your computer screen because of their bullshit the same as i have. these are old men in turtleneck sweaters who have never listened to a single album from a non-mainstream band. we let them write articles about bands like Dying Fetus, Kataklysm, Cannibal Corpse, and In Flames because they haven't liend when it comes to mainstream music, because they know mainstream music, and so we assume they might know good music too... these are the same people who would call the Dead Kennedys alternative rock (i have seen it!!!!!), and the Offspring punk (i have seen it!!!!!)... the same people who think that Children of Bodom are hardcore punk and Suicidal Tendencies are metal... you know i am right on this one; these people don't know the music that we listen to, they know the music that their faceless jock suburbanite children listen to.

So, let me ask you two things: 1) What genres would YOU YOURSELF classify Dying Fetus as? and 2) What do i have to do to get you to stop allowing this false information to remain like a black eye on this amazing band's page? What do i have to do to get you to take that hardcore punk and grindcore thing off? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.125.204 (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does your argument violate policy, it doesn't even hold water. One of the sources for Dying Fetus as hardcore is by Gary Sharpe-Young, a heavy metal writer and journalist.--3family6 (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Since you seem to have a strong grip of what sources are to be considered reliable or not when it comes to band-related things, I'd like your opinion on whether www.metalstorm.net is a reliable source. My first instinct is no, but I'd like to know your thoughts on the matter before coming to a final decision. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baz, if you're still around, can you have a look at Reborn (band) and see if there's something else you can dig up? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant dig "up", not dig "out"! Get me some facts, record deals, shows, reviews--or I'm stripping the "metal" out of your name and you'll be User:Black-----baz. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know how much you like getting into reliable source discussions *cough* sarcasm *cough*, so I thought that this ongoing discussion on the Skillet article could use your thoughts. It is essentially a two-fold problem: Are two independent but fairly reputable student-run newspapers count as reliable sources, and does WP:UNDUE apply to the statements made by these sources? Any help would be appreciated. Cheers,--3family6 (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring at Nokturnal Mortum, or I will block both you and the person you are edit warring with. For the full text of a proper warning, please see {{uw-3rr}}. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your messge, I have not contravened 3RR at any point, and would like to point out that labelling individuals as National Socialists on the basis of extremely dubious sources such as webzines is a major contravention of WP:BLP as I'm sure you are aware. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, you haven't broken 3RR, but you've edit warred consistently (and, unfortunately, used edit summaries to argue, which is not good). And I don't notice at any point that you've invoked WP:BLP, which is why you received the warning. If you are directly involved with this band, feel free to remove it, but it would be best if you stated so directly. If not, then I recommend going to WP:BLP/N to get a second opinion before placing another revert, because if it's not a BLP violation you run the risk of being blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The album is very different from previous Mayhem releases, and is often criticized in the metal underground for being too experimental." LOLZ--Malconfort (talk) 17:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you removed the section "Industrial black metal" from the Black metal article, identifying it, in the form that it was, to be unsourced OR (rightly so). However, there is a section at Industrial metal dealing with the style which is sourced. Do you think the sources given there are up to scratch to include the style in the black metal article? Some of them seem a bit sketchy to me, but I am curious as to your opinion. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're so nifty and I can count on you on what is a granted reliable source, can you take a look at the talk page for the band, After the Burial? There's a new user that has a source calling the band a certain genre that I'm having trouble dealing with hence I'm unsure on its reliability quality. • GunMetal Angel 03:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmetalbaz. Thanks for your edits on this one. The next Guild of Copy Editors Drive starts in 4 days, so it would be useful to leave the copyedit temp there for now so the article has the opportunity to be picked up and reviewed further by other experienced editors during July. Acabashi (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting that just now Baz - I was just about to and you beat me to it ;) Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmetalbaz, I saw a note on the ANI and looked at Gothic Forest's talkpage, and it made me wonder if anyone had thought to team up this editor with another editor. There are copyeditors for people who make spelling mistakes, actually there is a whole flipping guide of them on here. Not my thing I can tell you that, my spelling is no good at all. But some people like it. They made a whole guild. I'm wondering if there is a simply way to team up someone else with Gothic Forest, someone who likes looking for references, some people like that too you see. Maybe they'd love to find a list of 'things to do' everytime they sit down at the computer, Gothic Forest would make a perfect assistant for someone I'm sure. Well, I'm sure there is at least a possibility. So is there a project board Gothic Forest can be mentioned on ? Please put any response on my talkpage. Thanks. Penyulap _talk 22:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ANI that Penyulap is referring to is here. Feel free to post any commentary in mind over there. Also, check out this message on Gothic Forest's user talk page posted by Penyulap, if that is important. In my opinion, the message is kind of strange. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 04:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw you just undid that IP edit adding crust punk as a stylistic origin genre from grindcore, but the crust punk article lists grindcore as a derivative genre. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has long been consensus regarding the grindcore infobox; we simply don't need any further additions, as the far more general term "hardcore punk" is already there. Editors adding to the box without sources and against consensus are simply unhelpful. I'm unaware the same amount of effort has been put into establishing such a consensus on the crust punk page; I mostly monitor that page to make sure no unsourced additions are made to the list of bands. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I'm not as knowledgeable about that area of genres so I thought I'd check with you. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 15:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Drmies suggested I ask you and a couple others about this: I think that we should probably merge the articles on Shaman (Finnish band) and Korpiklaani, and have the resultant article take a chronological view of the two styles/names. I've started a new section at Talk:Korpiklaani#New merger discussion. Would you please take a look and comment? Thanks! LadyofShalott 12:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's an editor at Talk:Black metal who wishes to include a section on the style "progressive black metal", and has provided a deluge of sources which he wishes checked for reliability. Most of them look like the typical fansite-type links that are usually provided, but there are a few I'm not sure about. Your insight would be appreciated. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add all those artists back onto the page. They are all from allmusic. the refs don't say they play Swedish death metal. I am ready remove all those artists that you added.Curb Chain (talk) 07:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ample time has been given for you to find sources. I know you've worked on this article before. You have used time you could have spent to find sources to argue and edit war with me. I want to state the way you go about keeping the material you desire is by telling me anecdotal information, when I have repeated asked you provide citations.Curb Chain (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, was this guy ever one of those fanboys who tried to add some unattested subgenre into a page only to have their hopes and dreams crushed by "non-notable, needs RS"? Haha.

Honestly, I'd just take this to WP:AN/I. I have next to no faith in slow-moving "community" processes like WP:RFC, especially in cases like this where the user clearly couldn't care less about what others think. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Lothar, I'd take it to AN. It seem like after he fail all the AFDs, hes just trying to be a nuisance.Inhumer (talk)

a user Gunmetal Angel keeps wanting to list Montionless in White with out a reliable source. The only source he does use is a link to there record label. Mind you ever other place I have looked does not say one thing about them being Gothic metal. I just thought that if need be you could help me with this. He is a nice guy. Just not using the best of sources. --Epica124 (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check the latest thread on my talk page regarding the band Motionless in White? I have found several sources stating them as "gothic metal" and I would just like you to weigh in that at least one of them is reliable if it is. • GunMetal Angel 22:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, Baz. We have it settled. But yes, while I'm here just wanted to say: keep up the good work • GunMetal Angel 02:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding on that inclusion of Motionless in White. I only assumed you may have removed them either by mistake or perhaps a small opinion on not exactly liking metalcore bands. I understand you're one of those really true & faithful metalheads and yeah… I may listen to several different types of metal which range from the stuff you listen to, to metalcore and everything in-between. Best to say: I've been around the block to know guys in your league usually don't favor metalcore. But you're a good guy, I guess I was wrong to make such an assumption. That's all I wanted to say. Also, great job on all the work for that page, you did a good number on it. • GunMetal Angel 12:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The trivial genre issue has already been discussed, which even you agreed upon in this diff. In your own words, Leyasu/Blackmetalbaz: "I feel I should apologise; sourced does indeed (once url is fixed) state "goth/black metal"". --Danteferno (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blackmetalbaz, your'e a great guy and your edits to the Deathcore article are great (not stalking your edits, but when I viewed the article history, I saw your reverts.), but note that you reverted more than three times within 24 hours. Note that WP:EDITWAR clearly states that you should not revert more than three times within a 24 hour period. If it's a dispute, resolve the dispute on the article talk page rather than go ahead and reverting because it's just going to get you reported and probably even blocked for some time (depending on the complexity of the reverts and your approach to dispute). If the problematic IP was continuing to remove content and you reverting it, you should probably consider reporting him to WP:AIV or warn the IP address on his talk page. If you think you haven't violated WP:3RR, do you have any question to these: [7], [8], [9]. You reverted edits more than three times within a day. I can understand that at Wikipedia, we may have negative experiences (even I did when I wanted to revert problematic edits from an IP address), but really don't overreact and say (Am I correct in thinking that you have genuinely just taken the effort to report me for correcting formatting, without chaning content? ). I will reiterate once more that your'e contributions (not edit stalking of course) are great, but do not revert in more than 24 hours, because a report will only happen by any other editor and not just me. If I were you, i'd request Page protection of the Deathcore, but note that even reporting at the WP:EDITWAR noticeboard can result in temporary page protection as well. View WP:DISPUTE for further reading. Thank you. Abhijay (☎ Talk) (✐ Deeds) 02:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Music Barnstar
		Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia's coverage of music-related topics and notable bands when you created the new Dedringer article. Your efforts to improve the encyclopedia are appreciated. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How are webzines not allowed as sources? I mean magazines all the time are considered appropriate sources (especially the websites for these magazines), but an online magazine isn't? • GunMetal Angel 07:13, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The list of reasons is long... no professional editorial oversight or contributors being the main one; professional is this sense means you have to have been published in a commercial (i.e. for sale to the public) print source, and the source itself should be published by an independent, third-party body. So Garry Sharpe-Young's Rockdetector/MusicMight content was published by the independent Cherry Red books, hence passes WP:RS. However, anyone can set up an independent website (or fanzine, for that matter); these cannot pass RS as they are self-published. This rules out pretty much every metal webzine ever. As for the commercial print media (regardless of how real-world "reliable" editors may find them), they can always be used; their online versions are only marginally more problematic; forum posts can't be used, bbut the blogs of the magazine's staff are fine, as the staff (by being published in the magazine) qualify as "professional journalists". Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Dedringer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Blackmetalbaz. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Dark metal (genre), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to music genre. Thank you. GB fan 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]