Loading AI tools
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:HrZ. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Since all the tracks on this album appear on 13, I'm thinking maybe I should just incorporate the details, including the cover, onto that article like they incorporated the details about the Wonderland EP by Big Country with The Crossing and do a redirect. Does that sound good? Shaneymike (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
- Even though you have already, I agree that is perhaps the best thing to do. If an EP doesn't have enough sources (WP:NALBUMS) then they should be redirected. Any change you can provide some info on the EP on, 13, other than just the tracklisting? HrZ (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can find. Shaneymike (talk) 13:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi :) Yes I will get to it in the next two days. I apologize for the lateness, I just was a little busy. Get to it soon :)--CallMeNathan • Talk2Me 18:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
the absence of "to present" beside certain guest stars names is an oblique spoiler indicating their deaths, to anyone familiar with the show. I had not yet seen the final two episodes when I went to the page to do general research (carefully avoiding the episode page) and was dismayed to find that information on the main page. Also, 'to present' is not exactly knowable, in between seasons. All we know is that those characters were in season 2 - the fact that some among them survived the finale does not guarantee their re-appearance in the next season. 66.65.51.162 (talk) 03:20, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Irrelevant, spoilers are a non-issue here, per WP:SPOILER. If you didn't want to find any of that out then you shouldn't have read the article. You are correct, them surviving does not guarantee that they will return but there is no deadline on Wikipedia. When there are sources available the article will be changed accordingly. HrZ (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your first point, completely valid. However "View 1" from the "Deadlines" guideline page supports my deletion of that unsupported speculative material in favor of waiting for actual fact from sources. 66.65.51.162 (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
- The first section is for creating a new article not additions/removal of content. I went and checked if there is any sources that Davies will be in the third series and the closest I've come to is this. However, it only states "I don't think you've seen the last of Dickie. I'll give you that." - more of a hint than an outright confirmation though. HrZ (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
- Your first point, completely valid. However "View 1" from the "Deadlines" guideline page supports my deletion of that unsupported speculative material in favor of waiting for actual fact from sources. 66.65.51.162 (talk) 13:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your revert. What I wanna propose is to cut the hiatus activities and trim it. I would be even more radical and would cut that shit about solo work that I did in a seperate section. I really don't see the need for such "bloatency". Consider this proposal and let's work together to find the best formula.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
- See I'm not so sure. I believe it should be kept to summarize what the members have been doing since the hiatus. Though I believe much of the detail can be trimmed, such as the guests on Slash's solo album, members of Sorum's Carnival of Dog, etc. These can be worked into their articles if not already included. What do you think?
- What I think needs work is the possible return section. They made peace with Weiland, they wrote and auditioned singers including Corey Taylor, Myles Kennedy was rumoured to be the singer, they released a live DVD and worked with Macy Gray before stating the hiatus is to continue while the members are busy with other projects. All the information could be written into one paragraph, if not two small paragraphs. It is currently too long, overly detailed and inconsistent with the rest of the article. HrZ (talk) 14:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment! I've been on a mission to improve the original members' articles.
Re: the discographies, I'll go and classify the content of Izzy Stradlin discography and Duff McKagan discography per band instead of chronologically. I won't be adding chart listings and such, since I really have no desire to search for them online.
Cheers, Prayer for the wild at heart (talk) 22:21, 29 May 2011 (UTC).
The article Slash's Snakepit you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Slash's Snakepit for things which need to be addressed. AIRcorn (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Hiya HrZ. Regarding your 2x revert, I've added the briefer information back. Please feel free to join me at Talk:Green Apple Quick Step to discuss further, where I've already been leaving some notes & questions. Thanks! Cheers. duff 02:48, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey friend! I've noticed that you keep removing "post grunge" from "the pretty reckless's" article. I'm a fan of "grunge" and "post grunge" music and here is the proof that this band is also "post grunge" for example if you'll hear "make me wanna die" you'll see that this song is similar to some "Hole's" (grunge band) songs. HERE IS A LINK: http://www.last.fm/music/The%2520Pretty%2520Reckless?ac=pretty%20reckles Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsparkles (talk • contribs) 17:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
In case you haven't notice in wikipedia's text says this: "In an interview with MTV, Momsen reported the influences on the band to include The Beatles and Oasis, along with grunge band Nirvana. She also stated that her personal influences include Kurt Cobain and Joan Jett." Nirvana is a grunge band as it says. Post-grunge is using the sounds and aesthetic of grunge, but with a more commercially acceptable tone. So Pretty Reckless is a post grunge band too. The fact that you don't like grunge doesn't make Pretty Reckless not post grunge. I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsparkles (talk • contribs) 22:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, then! I'll try to fing a reliable source. Is this one? http://mikkisays.net/2010/07/24/post-grunge-the-pretty-reckless-the-pretty-reckless-ep-2010-flac-lossless/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilsparkles (talk • contribs) 15:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the barnstar! Hate to see people vandalise the article of my fave band, and destroy the hardwork that's been put in to get it to a Featured Article. And sorry for the watchlist clogging... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
you undid my revision of the Bullet Boys article asking if there is a source for the information and yes there, it is written on the thank you credits on the albums sleeve.I was a magazine editor in 1990 and Marq Torien also mentioned it in a Screemer Magazine article.Do you think I was just making it up? I feel it helps the article and is definitely worthy of note. I won't undo it I'll leave it up to you, as it's not that important to me. it was just an interesting fact.Punkinfo (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
- Thank You for your response to my deletion, however I don't remember the date of the Screemer Magazine and apparently they are in the process of archiving their material for the Internet but haven't done so yet. I don't know how to properly source the album sleeve for that content. thank you for your professionalism in this matter. Please do what you feel is proper. As far as a lot of additions and deletions on their article for no apparent reason, I can only imagine it's the work of the only original member vocalist Marq Torien for he is a control freak and is probably policing the information and cutting out anything that rubs him wrong or credits someone else. Good luck and I also noticed that you built Chris Weber's article. I knew him years ago quite a character.Punkinfo (talk) 13:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
You also undid a BulletBoys edit I made. There is PLENTY of documentation on the Internet for the existence of this album. You can simply go to Amazon to see it for sale. Gringo300 (talk) 04:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Reference added in Discography. Now, do I need a reference for the album earlier in the article, too? Gringo300 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Dude, I want to start an article on one of Suicidal Tendencies bass players.Bob Heathcote only since he hasn't had an article this whole time his page links to the " List of Suicidal Tendencies Band Members" article.and thats without any pre link in the bars. How can I start an article and change the link to go to his own page? I linked his name so you can see what I mean. If you have any help for me please let me know.Punkinfo (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Unified Theory at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! PM800 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yeah I know that a lot of these articles I've created/edited these last few months need work due to a lack of reliable, third-party sources. I probably should delete American Hangover considering the fact that it's a bootleg. I'm hoping some day Tanks of Zen will generate enough interest that AH will see a proper release but yes I know that's not what Wiki is for. I was planning to start an article for that band The Crying Spell but I'm aware of Wiki's policy for reliable, third-party sources. That Los Angeles Times article on My Sister's Machine and that Georgia Straight article on Soulbender are probably the only sources I've used for band articles that could qualify as gold. You're not the first person to address me on this matter, and you most likely won't be the last either. Tell me do you know of any editors who actually review each other's work via email or something before they actually post them? Shaneymike (talk) 00:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Velvet Revolver. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Message added 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
TransporterMan (TALK) 20:55, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Since the Corey Taylor "news" got treated as if it's important I think this rumour is good for keeping fans aware of who's being discussed, it's better than "they may be looking at someone", and this one is about as reliable and definitely more likely than Taylor, so it should stay. MillerCrosses (talk) 22:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC) I disagree, it stays until something else comes up. MillerCrosses (talk) 22:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well you don't own the page either, so why don't you let this public page be public. Hate to tell you you're not in control of the page, but guess what. MillerCrosses (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a rumour that is stated as a rumour and should be there there as it is interesting for readers, and is accompanied by a video of the band playing with the singer. It stayed there long enough before you personally decided it was disruptive when it is clearly okay by others and does not cause any problems. They haven't confirmed it so it still says rumour, you can read that yourself. You are being equally disruptive by deleting and telling others that you have decided what should stay (whether that is in the guidelines or not). My addition is not a lie, does not cause any confusion and is interesting enough for this page. MillerCrosses (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is one, single, individual rumour, not a collection. It is relevant for the time being, he played with them, they said they were working with one of the singers, he is the most likely. If, say, two/three months go by and nothing is heard (still definitely not enough time but okay) then it is irrelevant. Right now it is causing no problem whatsoever. MillerCrosses (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- The thing is the people that work for wikipedia are quite nice and are interested in sharing information, where as you have decided that you say what goes what doesn't. If you had asked me to remove it and given good sufficient reasons, while being polite and helpful, I probably would have. But that wasn't your way, and I see no reason to let you control any page or any other user. If the nice people at wikipedia told it was wrong to add it then that would be fine. But you're just someone who's decided your in charge. And I actually don't care in the slightest if I get banned, because at least I've done what I think is right. MillerCrosses (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is one, single, individual rumour, not a collection. It is relevant for the time being, he played with them, they said they were working with one of the singers, he is the most likely. If, say, two/three months go by and nothing is heard (still definitely not enough time but okay) then it is irrelevant. Right now it is causing no problem whatsoever. MillerCrosses (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- It is a rumour that is stated as a rumour and should be there there as it is interesting for readers, and is accompanied by a video of the band playing with the singer. It stayed there long enough before you personally decided it was disruptive when it is clearly okay by others and does not cause any problems. They haven't confirmed it so it still says rumour, you can read that yourself. You are being equally disruptive by deleting and telling others that you have decided what should stay (whether that is in the guidelines or not). My addition is not a lie, does not cause any confusion and is interesting enough for this page. MillerCrosses (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 | On 25 October 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unified Theory (band), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the alternative rock band Unified Theory is named after Albert Einstein's final hypothesis unified field theory? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, the problem is I don't see any way of breaking up the post-breakup section. The way reasonable way to organise it I think will be when they actually get a new singer, even if that's just "we have a new singer", and then ignore all rumours until they announce who it is. Sadly there's no sign of that and we may just have to settle for this loose end with the odd aimless quote from a band member. MillerCrosses (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
This can be interpreted in various ways. Usually it's preferable to put there (in Associated acts) only bands, as it's describe on the template:infobox, that has/had a professional relationship of some kind, like a collaboration or something of the sort. Former members are a bit more complicated. Although the two band have a "bond" (Josh and Zac), they have no other ties. And that must be taking in to account. I'm not saying it's not important. It is. But take a look in the article of the band Evanescence, for exemple. Although most of their former most important members have founded other bands like We Are the Fallen that has 3, not 2, but 3 former members of the old band, We Are the Fallen it's not on Evanescence's list of Associated acts and vice versa. Like I said, just have a former member it's not necessarily a criteria (or at least not the most important one, by far actually) to put there in the "Associated acts". To avoid confusions and to avoid any unnecessary "edit warring", it's preferable to put bands that has some king of strong professional relationship, like two bands that have worked together in some way or in some level or something like that. It's a matter of practicality. Coltsfan (talk) 18:52, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey buddy,
I was wondering if maybe you could review some changes I made to the article Diva when you have a chance. Also I've begun an articles for the band The Crying Spell and their debut album Through Hell to Heaven. I would definitely like to hear your opinion on all these articles/changes I've made. Any suggestions as to how I can improve them would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Good work expanding the Diva article. It's a shame you only really have two decent sources to use (LA Times and Allmusic) but you have used them well. You should remove the one Blogger source (replace it with a source from Music Bank perhaps). Not sure how reliable the metal-archives site is, will need to double check that. Also, you only need two links from allmusic, this (covers the review and the ratings box) and this (covers the albums recording and production personnel). Per WP:ALBUM/REVSIT (Non-professional reviews section), reviews from Amazon shouldn't be included. Apart from all that, good work on expanded that article as much as you have.
- Ok, now on to the other two articles! You really need more sources for both (and more information about the album). They both rely on allmusic (with the exception of the Blabbermouth source). Here's some that might help: , and . I haven't checked the actually links so it might be better searching for more as well. What you have is good, just needs more sources to save it from being deleted. The album has only the basic information, that anyone could find at Discogs or similar sites. There needs to be some more info. Anyway, that's all I can think of for now, good job though! HrZ (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah I know those other two articles need some more sources. Thanks for the insight about Seattle Weekly. What about Artist Direct? Is that a good source? Shaneymike (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just incorporated some details to My Sister's Machine and Diva using this source Washburn, Jim (May 18, 1992). "POP MUSIC REVIEW : My Sister's Machine Comes on Loud but Not Very Clear". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved December 7, 2011. to make them more neutral. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those when you get the chance and do the honors of giving those articles their 1st ratings. Shaneymike (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ratings? As in the box at the bottom of the page or do you mean a review? HrZ (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah as in in the box at the bottom of the page. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind doing the honors of giving those page their first ratings since you're more neutral to the subject of My Sister's Machine than I am. Shaneymike (talk) 01:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ratings? As in the box at the bottom of the page or do you mean a review? HrZ (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
- I just incorporated some details to My Sister's Machine and Diva using this source Washburn, Jim (May 18, 1992). "POP MUSIC REVIEW : My Sister's Machine Comes on Loud but Not Very Clear". Los Angeles Times. Tribune Company. Retrieved December 7, 2011. to make them more neutral. I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at those when you get the chance and do the honors of giving those articles their 1st ratings. Shaneymike (talk) 02:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you familiar with this book? As I'm sure you know that is one of the sources I've used in many of the articles for those other dudes from Alice N' Chains. Do you think that would be a good substitute for this?Lip Lock Rock: Alice N' Chainz Story I've also been giving serious thought to using it to help expand the article for Truly as lately I've developed an interest in that band as well but wanted to hear your thoughts on using GID as a source.
Also I'm thinking about expanding the album articles for the band Second Coming as much as I can. Allmusic lists L.O.V.Evil as having the same lineup as their s/t album but that I know ain't true. Johnny and James were on L.O.V.Evil but not Travis and Dudley. Still if you don't mind I would like to hear your thoughts on how I've expanded the reception portion of the article for their s/t album. And yes I've removed all links to the customer reviews at Amazon for those articles. Shaneymike (talk) 02:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- I do not have this book but it is on my list of books to purchase. It would be way better than the blog site. Should be noted that Greg Prato (the book's author) contributes to Allmusic. Truly are a good band to get into also (music wise). Think I actually started a re-write of their article just before I created The Dark Fantastic article. But yeah, there shouldn't be any problems using GiD as a source.
- Had a quick look at the self-titled album. For the sources available, it's a decent expansion of the reception section. HrZ (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 01:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that you reversed changes I made to the BulletBoys page. I believe it's because there was no source. Here is a link to an article advertising the show with all original members reunited http://www.bravewords.com/news/175044 as well as video from the show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgvAGbzbSmc&feature=youtu.be Can you please reverse your changes there and on the band's template? The BulletBoys now feature all original members. I appreciate you looking out for our page, but we will be very active in 2012 and I and other members will be making a lot of changes to our wikipedia page to keep our content current. We only know how to do basic updates. You can always find me on Facebook to verify any information or odd changes to our page if you need since you have such an interest in my band.
Thank you, Jimmy D'Anda/BulletBoys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.6.131 (talk) 01:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey, as you frequent the Nirvana (band) page, I hope you can add your own thoughts about ShizlGzngar's repeated additions to the lead section so we can work out the consensus. Otherwise, we're just going to be stuck reverting. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Hey,man,I appreciate about your opinion & reverting,but hardly anybody shows interest in discussing on talk page about genre.I've been a huge AIC fan for a long time & its good to see you're a big fan too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalvayne (talk • contribs) 08:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I get that, there are many articles that suffer the same problem when it comes to discussing genres. However, genres are often disputed while others are added without explanation or sources. You were bold and made the changes with some explanation but they have been changed many, many times before. The best thing to do is discuss it. Start a new topic, provide your evidence for sludge metal (reliable sources that say their music is that per WP:V), the more sources, the better chance you have of it being included. Please bare in mind that simply listening to the album yourself and saying "clearly they are sludge metal" falls under WP:OR. And yeah, AiC are arguably one of my favourite bands of all time! HrZ (talk) 12:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have noticed you are an active editor in LostAlone article, unfortunately I know almost nothing of it, but, I have noticed someone has created I'm_a_UFO_in_This_City page and I feel they tried to redirect this article to LostAlone, but could not format correctly. If you think that article should be redirected to LostAlone, please correct the formatting. Thanks. --Tito Dutta (Send me a message) 19:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes indeed; I have been away for a little bit. My contributing is still sporadic at best. I seem to have lost a few zines in the last move, but there was a great repository of RATM reviews and interviews somewhere on the web, I should find that again. We also seem to have another contributor now! I hope I wasn't too imperious in my reply to them, I just tapped it out late at night (for me). Cheers. ~ Switch (✉✍☺☒) 12:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
If you revert the edit and don't discuss there will never be a consensus.--Nusacc (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey buddy,
I was wondering if you would care to give me your opinion about a course of action that I've been thinking as of late and that is to take out the parts about Sleze in the Alice N' Chains article and start a separate one for that version of the band. One of the reasons I'm wondering this is that there have been articles for two early versions of The Cure for some time now, Easy Cure and Malice. My main source of info on Sleze is the book Grunge is Dead. I'll see what else I can find as well.
Another reason why I've been thinking about doing an article for Sleze is that one of their guitarists, Zoli Semenate (Ed Semenate), was in that punk rock outfit The Dehumanizers, who are best known for writing the song "Kill Lou Guzzo". I'm giving serious thought to starting articles for The Dehumanizers and Zoli as well due to the fact that he is credited for co-wrting "Kill Lou Guzzo" and his connection to Layne.
Basically, I want to know if you think I have enough to go on after reviewing the other articles for The Cure. Allmusic has info on The Dehumanizers. I also found this:
Music Review The Dehumanizers/Deep Throat
Shaneymike (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- If Sleze and The Dehumanizers pass WP:GNG and WP:BAND then there is no reason not to create the articles. If you check, both Easy Cure and Malice pass WP:BAND (Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians, or is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles.) and have enough sources in both articles. You will need more than just one book and a couple of sources though, but they do help. I kinda rattled this off quickly, hope it helps? HrZ (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes that was very helpful. Thank you. Shaneymike (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello HrZ,
Thank you for your message, you are absolutely right about Sarzo and I totally overlooked him. I reverted my template changes for now and took it to the talk page for discussion, because I'm still not sure if it should be included. Since I couldn't find any related help info about what to include in 'related articles' (or when something is 'warrented inclusion' as you put it), I used the 'See also' as guide, but this leaves lots of room for interpretation. Take care, — Quibus (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello I'm sorry for the outburst, but I rarely like to see my edits reverted. The reason I want to speak is to propose different approach for Velvet Revolver. I firmly think that the Hiatus activities section should be left out of the main History tree. I firmly believe it. Making it into subsection hampers the view and the readibility of the article. I would propose something different, but I want to make something "shootable". I want to rename it, sort of name it like "Solo careers during hiatus". I intend also to break up the "Formation" section wtih something like "Orings 1996-2000" and then actual "Formation 2000-2003". I intend to restructure the article similar like before, but without cutting sourced info or removing added stuff from before. I still think it would perfectly for this article. I hope you have faith and good reason.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi HrZ. I made radical changes to Velvet Revolver, combining the two sections, advised by your approach. :) I really think now it works better but I really think that it will work better if you contribute too. I really wanted to appeal to you, however I cut quite a lot. I rewrote it and recombine it to make it work. I hope you will like it.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 19:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm thinking about making the search of new singer and hiatus careers like 2008-present and the one-off reunion like subsection without the date on the heading. Ok, let's see how it works. If it doesn't, we will revert it back. Considering we are the two major contributors and are so far arsed about this page, we can do whatever the hell we want. Ok, let's plunge. Msg me back of your opinion.
- Regards: The Mad Hatter (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I've write my reasons to put the post-metal genre in Deftones' infobox, I also explained all the sources and other important points. I have to point also, based in the time register from his post in the talk page, and the second wave of changes that i did to the article, that the other user in the discussion (Fezmar9) already acepted the new consensus.
-Trascendence (talk) 03:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why would you assume he accepted the changes? His post on the talk page questions the sources you used and the inclusion of post-metal. He doesn't agree to any consensus as far as I can see. Simple because he didn't revert you after you made the changes (again) doesn't mean he agrees, he may be offline (please note he has only made 3 more edits since his post in the talk page). Until an editor says he agrees, assume he hasn't. A quick look at the sources suggests they are unreliable. MakeFive, Ology look like user generated/social networking sites (anyone can sign up and post) so unreliable. Creative Loathing and Straight.com seem ok but I'm not entirely sure. Sputnikmusic IS reliable, however, it has to be the staff review (this) not a user posted one. Thrash Hits I am unsure of.
- Please be aware that a consensus has to be reached first before any changes are made to the article. Genres are often heavilly disputed. If we cannot come to consensus on any changes, then the status quo remains. Per WP:STATUSQUO:
If you wish to check if a source is reliable or not, post at the reliable sources noticeboard. Regards. HrZ (talk) 11:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change.
Thanks for your message and for taking the effort to explain rather than reverting. I'll stay out of it for now anyway, since I'm being reverted and accused of edit warring, without getting decent arguments like the one you provided. Take care, — Quibus (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I think I may be on to something. :) Shaneymike (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
How Alice in Chains Found the Most Memorable Voice in Grunge
- That is pretty decent actually. HrZ (talk) 11:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad you think so. I'll see what I can do with it. I got it off of Jesse "Maxi" Holt BTW, the dude who sang most of the songs off L.O.V.Evil. I'm friends with him on Facebook. Cool guy. He says Layne was his favorite grunge singer. Shaneymike (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool. Most musicians, if you can contact them on Facebook, can be helpful with old articles and the like. When I was working on the Loaded article, I was speaking to drummer Geoff Reading, who also writes a column for Weekly Volcano. HrZ (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey buddy. Don't know whether or not you already noticed but I've gone ahead with what I proposed - Sleze. Also feel free to take a glance at the talk page when you get a chance. Any suggestions you have as to how I can improve the article will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :) Shaneymike (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed, nice job with the sources and the article. A quick scan, seems to have quite a few quotes. These should perhaps be re-written a tad, less quote and more descriptive of what happened. I'll explain better when I can and might take a stab at editing the article a bit. Any chance you could provide me some scans from Grunge is Dead that relate to Sleze? HrZ (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I copied the Bergstrom quote word for word from the De Sola article. I'll work on it some time this weekend when I'm not working but do feel free to take a stab at editing it if you want. I'll see if there is anything else related to Sleze in Grunge is dead that I might have missed. Shaneymike (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed, nice job with the sources and the article. A quick scan, seems to have quite a few quotes. These should perhaps be re-written a tad, less quote and more descriptive of what happened. I'll explain better when I can and might take a stab at editing the article a bit. Any chance you could provide me some scans from Grunge is Dead that relate to Sleze? HrZ (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hey buddy. Don't know whether or not you already noticed but I've gone ahead with what I proposed - Sleze. Also feel free to take a glance at the talk page when you get a chance. Any suggestions you have as to how I can improve the article will be greatly appreciated. Thanks. :) Shaneymike (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- That's pretty cool. Most musicians, if you can contact them on Facebook, can be helpful with old articles and the like. When I was working on the Loaded article, I was speaking to drummer Geoff Reading, who also writes a column for Weekly Volcano. HrZ (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm glad you think so. I'll see what I can do with it. I got it off of Jesse "Maxi" Holt BTW, the dude who sang most of the songs off L.O.V.Evil. I'm friends with him on Facebook. Cool guy. He says Layne was his favorite grunge singer. Shaneymike (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
The music does not fit the definition of witch house, having drag or drag-hybridized beat schemes. It is not a matter of opinion, that's what defines the genre. Being one of the original label owners for the witch house genre, I'm far more well versed in the criteria of what it takes to be considered witch house. Baku Shad-do (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Wither it fits the definition of witch house is irrelevant. The fact is, it is sourced which is the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia so your knowledge of the genre doesn't carry any weight (I don't mean that as an insult, that's just how it is). Genres are often heavily disputed and changed with the same reasons you gave. "This band isn't [genre] at all," "the editor doesn't know anything about that kind of music" or "I have far more knowledge about this genre than that guy" are recurring arguments that are not valid. There are at least three reliable sources that state witch house so it's included. If you found far more reliable sources that they are NOT witch house, then that would give weight to remove the genre (please check what is considered reliable and not reliable here. I will also point you to the Wikipedia policies:
- WP:V: "All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable, but because other policies and guidelines also influence content, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Verifiability, and not truth, is one of the fundamental requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia; truth, of itself, is not a substitute for meeting the verifiability requirement. No matter how convinced you are that something is true, do not add it to an article unless it is verifiable."
- WP:OR: "Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.
- WP:NPOV: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view."
I will point out to you that the definition of witch house is far more well sourced (please read the articles on drag) than you posting it wily nilly (you've offered no source that hasn't been already proven incorrect on the witch house page). You got a warning for messing with it, I'm bringing it to an admin. In addition, someone who is posting on Wikipedia should know how to spell properly, it helps. Baku Shad-do (talk) 20:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Articles are treated case by case, the fact that the definition of the genre is well sourced in its article doesn't matter (Wikipedia can't be used as a source). The fact is, a reliable source states "Chino Moreno, frontman of churn-metal titans Deftones, has a new witch house project with the very witch house name †††" so it has been included. There has been a discussion on the article talk page about this very topic (which you have ignored) that have provided two more reliable sources. You are removing sourced content based on your own opinion and are continually reverting without discussion. Essentially you are going against policy which I am trying to make you aware of (I am assuming you are fairly new to Wikipedia). Also, WP:NPA: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other contributors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks."
It isn't a personal attack, poor spelling doesn't aid the validity of a definition, it hinders it. Take the time to spell-check what you post, it helps increase your credibility as a writer. Baku Shad-do (talk) 20:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
- Make that only you, the other editor acepted post-metal one month ago
- Citing WP:STATUSQUO 4th. paragraph, final part: Do not revert verifiable changes that may be an improvement just to maintain status quo or to comply with the "discuss all changes first" approach, which may run counter to the Wikipedia be bold policy.
- your behavoir kind of fit here WP:OWN
- Yeah, consensus can always change, but you're not discussing, you're just changing the article. Keep in mind that the one trying to change a recent consensus it's you, so let the article as it is until we've reached an agreement. Trascendence (talk) 03:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Deftones shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Fezmar9 (talk) 16:13, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
listen as you have said that one of your main interest is music i request you to plz include the awards won by creed as a separate article i hav tried many times but could not do it dude please make some effort and include the page mahn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.223.90 (talk) 10:47, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
- I may create an article for it at some point. But it might be a while due to real life work. HrZ (talk) 13:59, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
no problem jst try to make a little fast..............:) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.87.219.117 (talk) 14:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
SORRY no intent of nagging you but have you begun................. :P
- Sorry but I havn't. I started University recently and don't have much time to create articles and search for all the reliable sources. You might have to wait a while if you want it done (by me). Alternatively, you can make a request for the article to be created. HrZ (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, if i remember right, you said that you haven't even read the sources that you brought, and that once you did so, we will weight these against the mines, and then we will decide if nu metal makes it on the infobox or not, however, you never did such thing, you just come and want to add the nu metal genre. You know that's not the way the things are done, we have to weight the sources first. I started a new discussion in the talk page, use it. Trascendence (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't just to mean to undo your edit...happened by accident. but Tony Black ( he went by a lot of names) aka now "Rex" singer of a band in Ventura called the Pretty Uglys and owner of Rock n Roll Fightcompany MMA was really the drummer of Hollywood Rose. Sadly he has not been mentioned a lot. If you want to get in touch with him and ask him more questions about that time let me know. Just want to give him credit for what he has done :). Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.88.150 (talk) 03:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- This may be true, but unless a reliable third-party source exists, it cannot be included in the article. Please read Wikipedia policy WP:V: "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." HrZ (talk) 13:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars|Talk:30 Seconds_to_Mars]]". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I am trying to get wiki info updated for Too slim and the Taildraggers and you said you can maybe help. Thank you for your time. This information is factual and can be confirmed by my management.
My management set up this page under User Holis. All updated information can be confirmed by the official Too Slim and the Taildragger website www.tooslim.org and other sources such as Amazon.com and management.
Discography updates can be confirmed at http://www.underworldindierecords.com or biographical info can be confirmed at http://www.amazon.com/Too-Slim-and-the-Taildraggers/e/B000AQ6MSI/ref=ntt_mus_dp_pel or http://www.tooslim.org or Too Slim and the Taildraggers booking agency http://www.bmatours.com.
Suggested discography updates are as follows:
- "Wanted Live" -(1994)
- "Pint Store Blues"-(1999)
- "Broken Halo" -(2012)
- "Blue Heart"-(2013)
Suggested Band member info- current band Members : Jeffery Fowlkes-(Drums ,Vocals 2013-present) Eric Hanson- (Bass 2014-Present)
Former members: Tommy Cook (drums) Polly Keary-(Bass,Vocals) Edward Scott Esbeck-(Bass, Vocals)
Updated accomplishments: Blue Heart-2013-Charted at Billboard Top Blues Album Chart #3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Holihs (talk • contribs) 18:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for getting in touch. I will get to updating the article as soon as I have a moment to properly look at the sources. Just so you are aware, though, Wikipedia has strict policies that need to be followed (hence the revert) so while everything you are saying is likely to be true, we can only use verifiable sources (to see what qualifies as a reliable source, see WP:RS). The main website can be used (though third-party sources are prefered) but a site like Amazon can't. Regards. HrZ (talk) 14:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
Template:Lovehammers has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 12:11, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
