Dear Leyasu: Hello there, I'm Nicholas, coordinator and mediator down at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. A request has recently been made via e-mail for us to mediate a dispute relating to the Deathrock and Deathrock fashion articles, and the person who made the request named you as an involved party. The case is at:
If you would please be so kind as to read the request and comment as appropriate, stating whether or not you'd be willing to enter mediation, I would be most grateful. Remember, you can't be subject to any disciplinary action for what happens during mediation, or if you don't want to mediate - you can do exactly what you like, and this process is entirely voluntary and unofficial. Should you ever require any assistance or support relating to either this mediation request or the dispute, please feel free to contact me. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you cannot cite sources/examples of your claims, whether it is an allegation against anyone or a claim you're making in an article, please do not respond to any of my messages again. Thank you. --Danteferno 15:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the article Norsecore, just so you know, to comply with GFDL requirements for author attribution, the proper thing to do after a merge is to redirect where the content was merged to. Deleting it and replacing it with the redirect would eliminate the contribution history. Regards, howcheng {chat} 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in future, I suggest you learn what you're talking about before you label other editors' actions as "vandalism". Calling good-faith contributors vandals is a personal attack which, if you don't already know, is a definite no-no 'round here. I think you should also refrain from tagging articles for speedy deletion until you learn what is and is not a valid speedy reason. Thanks, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I was doing was cleaning up the backlog in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by deleting speedy-tagged articles that need deletion, and removing the tags from articles that don't (often there are two or three). Tagging an article for speedy deletion means "ask an admin if he's willing to delete it". I am one of the admins who check up on the tagged articles and delete them, if necessary. As such, I fail to see how either action — deleting, or removing the tag — could possibly be considered "vandalism" by anyone willing to engage their brain for a few moments.
User:Howcheng has explained to you above why the article couldn't have been deleted. Many admins will do the merge and redirect work themselves if that's the result of the AfD discussion, but some won't. If you want to merge an article, add the relevant stuff to the merge target (using an edit summary like "merge from Norsecore"), then replace the original article with a redirect. Neither article gets deleted. The speedy tag was inappropriate and, if you take a look at the wording of the tag, the proper action when dealing with an inappropriate speedy tag is to remove the tag. It could not have been vandalism. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are handled by having the only line of the article be #REDIRECT [[Target]], where "Target" is replaced by the name of the article you want to redirect to. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 03:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notify, looks like a standard section blanking to me, which I reverted. (Personally, I'm not really a fan of metalcore, too hard on my ears.) — TheKMantalk 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At this point I think we have an idea of where Nu metal and Alternative metal are going. I think it's important to keep in mind that neither are absolute genres; alternative metal has a two-fold defintion based upon the common ground it has with metal and alternative, and nu metal more than anything refers to a movement than actual stylistic traits (although many bands do share them, as is prone to happen when trends become popular). However at this point, until we get more sources for either topic, there's little we can do. Personally, I want to focus on copyediting both articles (given I'm an English major and that's probably what I should be doing on Wikipedia above all else); that is, correcting grammar, rearranging sentences, rewriting parts, and resturcting the articles to make them more clear and concise. Basically, if you have any additional info to add to either of these articles, add it to them, contact me, and I'll try to integrate them as best as possible into the articles. Beyond that, I have no other ideas to suggest, but if you've got any, please share them with me.
Metal music is more problematic. I've already stated my views, so I'm not going to go too indepth into them. My concern is that a lot of the argument is possibly based on a misinterpretation of classification system like those used on Encyclopedia Metallum, as well as (as I see it) a misguied emphasis placed on the titles of the articles rather than their content. For example, those links provided recently in the talk page didn't actually help, because neither Encyclopedia Metallum or the FAQ provided make any sort of distinction beyond naming.
My approach is in maintaining the original article, heavy metal music, and the purpose it was created to fill. I don't think a metal music page is necessary (especially since to a great deal of people, the terms are interchangeable) but I have no objection to it existing if it fulfills a distinct purpose that does not detract from the original page.
Right now, aside from the genre list, both articles serve the same purpose; specifically, the history section. The material from the "the term heavy metal" and "Origins" (1960s and 1970s)" on the heavy metal music is summarized in a single paragraph in the "origins" section of metal music, although the summary proves ineffective as the more indepth description on the Heavy metal page is able to integrate sources and put them into context in order to effectively describe the origins of both the term and the genre. Also, the assertion that Black Sabbath is the first heavy metal band is rather tenious, and given that the term was applied to (and is still applied to) Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple since the early 70's (as evidenced by sources) it is factually incorrect. Additonally, both the sections "Undeground metal" and "Alternative metal" on the Heavy metal page attempt to cover the same ground the "Evolution" section on Metal music does, that topic being the emergence of a variety of subgenres. While the Heavy metal page section is much less detailed, keep in mind that metal subgenres did not really start to form until the early 80's, thus the heavy metal page has to cover more ground. Also, the intro paragraph to the History section on the Metal page is extremely POV ("like the term 'rock and roll' it is now gathering dust balls in the cupboard"). Without any sort of source, right now it seems like a personal declaration of the difference between the terms, and we can't have that sort of thing on an encyclopedia.
In order to remove ths redundancy, I think it would be best to simply remove the history and integrate it into the Heavy metal music article to fill out the evolution of subgenres. Right now the metal page works best in describing the subgenres (mainly because the List of hevay metal genres was merged into it not too long ago). I can personally merge the history sections without much effort. However, the subgenres might be a little too descriptive for what is essentially a list; their own articles are intended to describe and define them indepth anyways. The more that text can be reduced while still being informative, the better. Not just out of a redundancy concern, but out of space concerns (a few weeks ago that page was push the KB limit). Another suggestion is to simply rename the page "heavy metal subgenres", "Metal subgenres", "List of metal subgenres", etc. But then again, that would also remove the purpose of there being a page called metal music. I wouldn't mind, but others might mind and we still haven't sorted this whole thing out yet.
In the end, we are not the only ones working on Metal music. A large number of people have debated the topic since when I first signed up. Our best individual approach would be to provde sources on the topic in order to hopefully come to a conclusion. But until everyone else comes to an understanding between each other, I'm content to not edit either page too much beyond simple cleanup. Given the amount of passion attached to the subject I don't want to make any major changes that might cause an uproar, so I'd rather talk everything out before I do any major work on the page.
(Personally, I think I could merge them in less than an hour) WesleyDodds 05:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you commented on a few of the proposed principles and proposed remedies and suggested other things to do. If you have anything in the case that you'd suggest doing, feel free to go ahead and add another header for it. There are no restrictions on who does that on the Workshop page; just make sure to follow the template. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've noticed that you have made a change to the effect that Satanic imagery is fashionable in goth culture, probably because of its association with black metal, which goths dislike or despise. This doesn't seem to make sense. Why would they be influenced by something they dislike? Could you change this sentence somehow to clarify what is intended? E.g. you might want to say that it is fashionable despite the association with a disliked form of metal, or whatever. (Btw, might any influence not come from classic metal of the Black Sabbath/Dio kind rather than from something as specific as black metal, which I understand to be something quite specific and associate mainly with Scandinavia? I'm just asking. I don't know the answer, and I'm sorry to display my ignorance. You seem to have a lot of expertise on this topic that I lack; I'm just a bit confused by the current sentence in the article.)
Hello, there is a request for mediation open between you, Leyasu, and Parasti here. If you are open to mediation with me as the mediator, all via email, drop me a note on my user talk page. --Improv 02:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
When I first posted mine, I gave a caveat that it might be too long for the word limit, but yours is getting a lot longer. At the top of the page, the ArbCom said, "When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise.... Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective." We're both over 1000 words, but you should really cut back on the diffs. You're up to over 200 diffs. If you make your evidence too long, the arbitrators might not read all of it, and that could affect the decision they agree upon.
I noticed that you were concerned about my interpretation about the Children of Bodom diffs. Regarding that, the evidence page says, "Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues." I'm not ignoring the edits where you did follow policy; we're all told to focus on edits where contributors go against policy, so that the arbitrators know what to look for and exactly where they can find it.
Also, this comment that you made on the Evidence page borders on being a personal attack: "Concenring Idont's attacks at me and my edits on the Children of Bodom page, i point out that the users has disregarded sources in the same way as Dante, on the basis they do not count unless they agree with their POV [1]." I didn't say anything about that. When I write new articles, or revise articles on subjects that I know something about, I always consider as many points of view as I can find, provided that the sources look credible. I don't have to agree with the sources that I find; in fact, in some cases, it's important to go look for sources you don't agree with ("writing for the enemy"). I've edited articles on controversial topics where I had a stronger opinion; in those cases, except for one edit that I wish I hadn't made, I was saying, "The article reads like a rant", but rather than shifting the balance toward sources agreeing with my point of view (which I tried to leave out of the debate as much as possible), I wanted to ensure that all points of view were covered adequately. I wanted my opinion to be heard, but I didn't want to discount what the other editors on the page had been saying. As for the Children of Bodom debate, I don't have a POV; I've never even edited that article before. Aside from Gothic metal and Talk:Gothic metal, I haven't edited many metal-related pages here.
I fulfilled your request and blocked you, though I don't know if I'm allowed to do that, since we're in an arbcom case right now. I'm going to ask around and make sure that was ok to do. Thanks for telling me about it, though honestly, I'm not sure why you reverted that anonymous editor that many times anyway. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please, this is getting out of hand. After your first 3RR block, you came right back and resumed edit warring over what really is an extremely trivial issue. Please find some way to compromise on this with the other editors; I'd really hate for this to end up in front of the Arbitration Committee. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
New What it should really be saying
Epica's The Score ~ An Epic Journey — was released in September 2005 many of the songs on the a album were made for a Netherlands movie called Joyride. Though it can also be seen as there thrid album. The album is influenced by the music of Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman. Characterised by guitarist, Mark Jansen, the album is "Typically Epica. Only without the singing, without the guitars, no bass and no drums"[2].
Old what it should not be saying.
Epica's third album — The Score ~ An Epic Journey — was released in September 2005. Not following the style of previous releases, the album is reminiscent of epic film soundtracks and is influenced by the music of Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman. Characterised by guitarist, Mark Jansen, the album is "Typically Epica. Only without the singing, without the guitars, no bass and no drums"[1]
The Score was never really there third album. All it really is, is a soundtrack for a movie in the Netherlands called Joyride. I think it would better if we put in what it really is so that any one who comes across it and want to pick up there CD's will see it for what it really is. I don't really want them to confuess it for there thrid album when it's not. by turemetalfan Feb 8, 2006 7:03 PM ET
I think you should come and have a look at the discussion page. I've set up a "proposed changes" section. 220.239.77.250 08:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still put in there it can be looked at as there 3rd album. But for the sack of any new fan that comes along I would want them to know that they are not going to be getting some metal CD. I mean the way it read was that peopel would think that Epica was goind to be all over it. This way they will be able people will seee that is is A) a soundtrack and B) there 3rd album in away. But I look at it as for new fans look more into I just don't want them getting the wrong info about the CD. I mean really you know and I know and many other fans know that it is listed as there 3rd album.
Hello,
You have placed a {{mergeto}} tag in the Oriental metal article [3] suggesting that it should be merged with the Symphonic Metal article but you did not place a {{mergefrom}} tag in the Symphonic Metal article nor did you start a discussion in any of the talk pages. I've placed a {{mergefrom}} tag in the Symphonic Metal article but if I don't see any arguments in favor of the merge soon, I'll be forced to remove it. Thank you --– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just checked your contributions and realized that you meant to merge the Opera metal article instead and it makes a lot more sense. If this is the case please be careful were you place the merge tags. If it's not, please comment on why you want those articles merged. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote Opera metal for AFD if you want; I haven't read the article and I'm not really interested in it. I am interested in the Oriental Metal article though and I believe that it's a metal scene associated mostly with regional differences rather than with style. Articles such as Scandinavian death metal can be noted as articles that make such distintion. My point is not whether this article should or should not be merged, my point is that if you're going to propose a merge, you should post arguments on it in the talk page. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 20:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like a simple edit war to me, I don't see any evidence of lack of good faith. You might want to check the page on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and follow the steps suggested. If that doesn't work you can always goto request for arbitration. More importantly, I suggest you and User:Deathrockerbe nice to each other and consider the best interest of Wikipedia and the article. --– sampi (talk•contrib) 19:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
