User talk:The Haunted Angel/Archive 8

haha.dollarpedia?

why you say that i'm doing something wrong.Is it because i delete what i don't like.yes it is truth!i delete anything that i think that has to do with commercial act and advertisment.At the end of the day i thought wikipedia was a new type of encyclopedia and not a new way of advertisment.and why yoy dodn;t change your name to dollarpedia,if it so?Anyway i'm going to delete anything that has to do with advertishment.i think this is my right —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.108.192 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What I deleted was this, your clumsy and unexplained removal of some information. As you can see, the Wikicode got a bit fucked up thanks to your removal. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Francis Griffin

An editor has nominated Francis Griffin, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Griffin and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Powercore

This doesn't fall under A7, I suggest you reread the speedy deletion criteria. A7 applies to real people, groups of people or web content, not made-up musical genres. I have removed the tag- it'll go with the prod, otherwise it'll find itself deleted at AfD. There's no hurry! J Milburn (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It was unfortunatly the best I could get with Twinkle, as there doesn't appear to be one for OR. Either way, I suppose you're right when there's no rush - I'll wait for the AfD. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Saw January Newsletter

The WikiProject Saw Newsletter Issue III - January 2008

Happy New Year, everyone! Not much of a newsletter for today...I just wanted to report that OfficialSaw.com's website has undergone a massive renovation and has added character profiles and trap descriptions and the like. Why am I telling you this? Because it appears that our Wikipedia articles have been used for the site! (Check out the House of Jigsaw history section for one example). So feel proud, knowing that the articles that you have worked on have garnered notice from the folks at LionsGate...

--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism on Rammstein

Could you please elaborate, or give a proper reason why you reverted my edit from a vandalized link description? -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 14:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure which edit you mean, exactly; could you provide me with the link diffs please? ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rammstein&diff=prev&oldid=184860468 -- ...RuineЯ|Chat... 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, this was an error on my part - I reverted a lot of vandalism, including edits that broke the info box back, and it appears I reverted a bit too far! Please accept my apologies. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You deleted every track description on every Rammstein album. Why is this? They were so much better and more informative before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.13.70.12 (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that the first time I read it, I was intrested, and enjoyed it - but unfortunatly, the descriptions count at original research, no matter how sure we are of the meaning of the tracks. It's not our job on Wikipedia to write about the lyrics (that's up to songmeanings.net), we just display the tracks - unless there is a source from a member of the band saying specifically what the song is about. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

do you think...

do you think it would reduce the amount of genre related vandalism on the Cradle of Filth pages if the entire genre line on them were a template (including the |Genre= part) to confuse newer would-be-vandals and channel others into that one "easier to defend" template page. do you think that would work? Balthazar ^(T|C) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think that that might be a but much. I can see where you're coming from (to tell the truth, I'd usually use a tactic like that :P), but I think doing that may be a bit overboard, as it's not tremendous problem of people changing their genre, and if it would ever come to it, a semi protection wouldn't go amiss. Good idea though, mate :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Apocalyptica site

Are you sure Apocello must count as spam just because it's technically a fansite? It actually has a lot of good information, particularly translated interviews, that aren't on the official site. If nothing else, do you think I could put a link to this. Thanks. --Gueneverey (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to have this site added, as I agree it is a useful site, it is unfortunately against Wikipedia policy to list fansites, which I think would include the second link - seems a shame though, as I have to admit it does contain a fair amount of information. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth

Black Metal is one of the many genre's that cradle fit into. They WERE extreme metal when they first started, but over time their music has changeged, and albums such as Nymphetamine and Thornography ARE classified as Black Metal as they (unlike their earlier works) Have more symphonic elements, and even Dani's voice has changed from the incoherent shrieks and screams of 'The Principle of Evil Made Flesh', and now on tracks such as 'Libertina Grimm' and 'HW2' He's starting to use Clean vocals. So Cradle may have BEEN extreme metal, but they're not any more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinblack (talk • contribs) 08:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm not sure where to start, because if anything, they've moved away from black metal, not towards it. However, I must ask you not to discuss it with me here, but over at Talk:Cradle of Filth ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

</div>

I made an error on the code for the Image:All your base are belong to Wikipe-tan.gif. I fixed it for you before someone else copies it and gets and error on their page.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 18:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that mate :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

anytime--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 19:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thornography

The track times on the original release of Thornography are unsourced. They do not need to be sourced. Though however if you think that they're still wrong once you've got your own copy of the Deluxe package... alter it then. And I know it's Sarah Jezabel Deva singing in the cover of 'Stay', because like I've already said... it was leaked onto the internet, and I have it. And the track time for 'Devil to the Metal' is also on their myspace page.

The information is neither 'good faith' or 'vandalism'. Just because there's no source link, doesn't make it false. I'm the source in this case. I know the information... therefore I've added it.

If you think the information provided is false after the Deluxe package has been released. Then by all means alter it. But you'll see for yourself that my information is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinblack (talk • contribs) 22:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you do not constitute as being a source - sources must be reliable. I will allow this information on the page after the deluxe edition has been released, or when I see a reliable source myself. ≈ The Haunted Angel 03:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well just because YOU haven't seen the information with your own eyes, doesn't mean it isn't there to be found. If you look for the tracks on p2p sites or programs you'll see that it WAS leaked onto the internet, as I added... which coincidentally there's an unreferenced note about the original release of the album being released onto p2p networks. You didn't remove that, or ask for citation. Which seems that you're only removing MY information from the page. There's alot of unsourced information on wikipedia. Just because it has no other source, doesn't make it true. There are other aspects of information on Cradle of Filth related atricles alone that are unsourced, which have not been removed. I mentioned that the track time for Devil to the Metal was available on myspace... yet you still removed that, which is an obvious act of vandalism. And also I do not appreciate being called a liar. Other people can see reliable sources without them having an online reference. Just because you've taken it upon yourself to watch over the Cradle of Filth articles, doesn't give you the right to be the only source of information. Like I said, if you look for the tracks... you will find the information I have provided is both relaible and true. Wether or not you listen to the track is entirely up to you. You can't put a link to a p2p network program to use as a source, because it's not a hyperlink. But I've explained that it's been released in such a way, which seems to be an acceptable note on the pervious leak of thornography: The album was leaked to p2p and torrent internet sources a month before its official release date. If you don't check the source I've offered then you're only vandalising wikipedia by removing reliable information. Alinblack (talk) 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No, it being on p2p sites doesn't count as it being reliable. If you look around, you'll see many other Cradle of Filth songs have been leaked onto the net which turned out not to be true. I never once called you a liar, I simply said that you claiming have the album does not count as reliable. Otherwise, I could claim to have the album myself which says something completely different about track listings and such. As I said, I'm not calling you a liar, I'm simply saying that it will not be added unless you actually have a reliable source that can prove it now; a lot of information on Wikipedia isn't sourced, but it doesn't mean that it's true. I personally remove most unsourced information as soon as I see it, unless it's an obvious fact, such as the length of songs on albums that have been released. I suggest you leave the Thornography page alone, until the album is released proper or you get an RS, or else I will count it as full vandalism which will lead to a block. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you download them, you'll see they aren't fake. But I've added some sources for all the information, including the info about the leak... the track times & the information about Sarah Jezabel Deva's vocals on the Stay cover. I've not only claimed I have it, but also told you where you too can find it. If you CHOOSE not to look for yourself, then that's your choice, but all the information is available on other sites aswell. If you download it, you'll see it's not fake, and like the original version of the album, it HAS been leaked onto the internet before it's official release. And like I said, the track time for Devil to the Metal has been released on Cradle of Filth's myspace page AND also the website of their record label where it's available for free download. And even after telling you this, you still removed THAT information. Alinblack (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

You wanted proof, so I was offering you the same source of proof I have. The tracks themselves. Which would also prove that the album was leaked. I can see where your coming from, but I wouldn't add false information on wikipedia. Not would I be daft enough to accept anything I'd sownloaded unless I'd downloaded from a reliable source, and heard for myself. Even though I've now sourced as much as I can find, I still think to put your mind at ease, you listen to the tracks yourself. Even though I have them, I'll still be buying the Deluxe Version once it's released. And I hope that once you've heard the track, as well as liking them, you'll also trust that I'm not going to add info about Cradle without being 100% sure it's true. I've been a fan of them for a number of years, and I can understand why you'd feel the same way as me about them, that you want all the information on here to be true and no "rouge infomation" published about the band. Alinblack (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As much as I understand how you wish to add information that you have, it'd be against Wikipedia policy to do so. You yourself may be able to listen to the download and know it's Cradle, but there have been mistakes with this before. I believe under the discography page, there is (or used to be) a referece to how they covered Slayer's Angel of Death, and was available for download - when in actual fact was a completely different band. Even if I had the download, I wouldn't add it on Wikipedia unless I had a source that everyone could see straight away was true, without asking them to download something. Well, as long as the problem is sorted now, that's ok :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That's ok, like I said, I know Cradle when I hear it and wouldn't fall for any of the file renaming scams that go on alot on p2p networks. I've downloaded pre-release before to find it's bogus, and so I'm not easily fooled. I just wanted to set the debate to rest about who sang vocals on 'Stay' and everyone seemed to have different opinions. But I hope you enjoy the new tracks regardless of how or when you obtain them. I'll remove the sources for things such as the track listing after the release of the album, as it will no longer be needed. And I hope you won't be so distrusting next time I add something ;) if in doubt, feel free to ask me. Alinblack (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lol, it's not you I'm distrusting of - I'd love to assume good faith; I'm just against additions of information without sources. Hell, I'd be able to recognize Cradle when I heard it, but unfortunatly Wikipedia doesn't operate on this sorta' basis. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well as long as next time, you realise I'm not adding for the sake of adding... like yourself, I want the Cradle infor to be as abundant and accurate as possible. But sometimes there aren't references, as you know it might be something the band have said live on stage, or perhaps in an interview of a magazine. I can understand the distrust of anything unsourced. But as long as you understand that if I can add references I will (as I have once I found them!) but wikipedia is a source of information for alot of people, which is why once sources are available I'll add them. But I'll keep my additions with citations if possible in the future.
And I'll also help monitor the COF pages. I'm still fairly new to wikipedia, but I'm leaning fast.Alinblack (talk) 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear; will look forwards to working with you. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ;) But I do think that rather than re-releasing an album with bonus tracks, it'd work better as an EP. As alot of fans who bought the album the first time will have to buy it again if they want the extras. I'm just glad that when Nymphetamine came out my friend bought it so I was able to add it to my iPod until I bought the re-release (which being on Roadrunner was obviously going to happen). That's the one problem I have with record labels, lol. But that's personal opinion (an I'm unlikely to be the only one! Haha). An therefore not subject to the wiki pages themselves.
I look forward to working with you and Cardinal Wurzel in the future.

I was tempted to add the fact that Cemetary And Sundown's original working title was he The Flora of Nightfall, the Fauna of War which was a quote from the lyrics, but I doubt it's that relevant, though some people might find it useful. It was quoted as a track in interviews with the band, and since the lyrics come from that song, it's mostly an assumption. Have you heard/read if this is the same track as I'd like a 2nd opinion? Alinblack (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had to re-buy Nymphetamine with the bonus track, and will do the same with Thornography; hardly seems fair, and I agree it should really be released as an EP - but it doesn't really bother me a great deal.
I've never heard of Cemetary and Sundown being reffered to as that, but I don't read every interview, so it could well have been. As much as I might sound like a broken record, I think it'd be relevant to add somewhere in the article if a source could be presented, such a transcript for the interview where it might have been mentioned. However, I think it'd be a bit iffy mentioning that it could have been the working title for CaS, although it most likly was based on the lyrics, as you said. If a source was presented, you could say something like
"One of the titles for Thornography was "The Flora of Nightfall, the Fauna of War", and although it is unknown which song this was the working title for, the lyrics appear in Cemetary and Sundown..." or whatever. Still, I nagg a lot about sources and such, and most of the stuff I do now seems to be removing unsourced material - so don't think that I have a grudge against you or anyone else ^_~ I just like Wikipedia to be as accurate as possible. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Ep's would be a better idea, but then the record companies wouldn't make as much money as they can sell the Special Edition for more than they didn the original album. But I like my system of waiting for the re-release and making do with it on my iPod til then. ;)
I remember reading the title in a couple of interviews. I've had a scour online, and after disregarding numerous lyric sites... I found a reference (Which was hard to find in ENGLISH! lol, alot were in russian appart from the track titles). It also quotes CaS as being one of the titles, which means that it was a working titles for another track (possibly one of the 2 instrumentals that also took their titles from lyrics) But isn't Rise of the Pentagram as that's mentioned in the article as "an as yet untitled band instrumental".
But I've added a small section on the Thornography page, see what you think.
It's ok, I didn't think you ad a grudge, I just thought you were gettin a bit carried away by removing everything (such as DTTM track time, which you admitted to have overlooked) but when wikipedia is written by humans, you have to account for human error, lol. So don't worry, no hard feelings either way. :)Alinblack (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I checked it out and it looks good :) And yeah, sorry for any bad faith I may have inadvertenly put forwards - but yeah, no hard feelings ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I figure "Murder in the Thirst" is likely to have been "TFON,TFOW" since it's title was also taken from "CaS". But thats logical deduction an not cold hard fact! lol. No problem bout the 'bad faith'... its sorted now ;) Alinblack (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your email address

Sorry to mess around with your userpage, but I had to remove your email address - several members of the public complained to Wikimedia's public relations team about it. Feel free to get back to me if you've got any questions and happy editing! east.718 at 02:00, January 27, 2008

all uppercase embedded text in Wikipedia article

Greetings. In article List of musical works in unusual time signatures, I found this embedded text on the top:

BEFORE YOU ADD ANY NEW SONGS, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU CITE A SOURCE! TRYING TO INTERPERATE THE TIMING YOURSELF, NO MATTER HOW SURE YOU ARE, COUNTS AS ORIGINAL RESEARCH (see WP:OR) IF YOU WISH TO CITE A SOURCE, PLEASE SEE WP:CITE - ANY UNSOURCED ADDITIONS WILL BE REMOVED!

After my attenion was drawn to this text, I found out that it was you who added it a while ago (21:41, 25 November 2007, to be exact). I had ignored it before because for me, like for most people, text in all uppercase is hard to read, and it hurts the eye. In addition, all uppercase text is widely considered as the writing equivalent of screaming. Because of these reasons, I ignore such text, as a matter of principle, and I am not alone with that. Which is why I ask you if you consider converting this text to lowercase.
The second question refers to the contents of the text. Did you secure a general agreement that this type of text should be preceding this article? I have edited hundreds, maybe thousands of articles without ever encountering such a type of text. I do agree that it is a good practice to cite sources when adding facts to an article, but it seems a bit harsh, if not uncooperative and even destructive, to remove every unsourced statement, without making even a minimal effort to locate a source yourself. If this attitude were to apply to all of Wikipedia, it would most likely be reduced to a fraction of its present size. I think an addition made to a text in good faith is something worthwile in general. If in doubt, it can usually be quickly established if the addition was justified or not. For more difficult cases, there is the discussion page of the article.--Ratzer (talk) 13:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey; firstly, the text I put in upper case was aimed to draw people's attention to it - it stands out as opposed to lower case stuff, and has a greater chance of being noticed. Secondly, it is not my duty to find a source for these time sigs. If you look through the history of the page, you'll see most of the edits are reverting or adding unsourced material. If someone wishes to add a time sig, it is their duty to provide the source - the Wikipedia editors cannot be expected to search for sources for other people's additions. The warning I added help emphasises this. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Les Legions Noires

You appear to be talking sence on the black ambient article. Any suggestions as to how to procedd regarding the Les Legions Noires article? It is, almost by definition, impossible to get hold of any reliable sources regarding the movement so I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to make it more encyclopedic, given that I believe LLN to be notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, my rule of thumb is always "if it's notable, then it shouldn't be too hard to find sources for it". Although they may exist, if they are lacking many sources some editors on Wikipedia may not be in agreement about it's notability. I must ask though, why is it, "almost by definition, impossible to get hold of reliable sources", as you stated? ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, they refuse to give interviews for a start. Print runs of releases are notoriously low, so their impact is largely via the Net... Ebay and Myspace - not reliable sources, but equally the name is well known. Individual bands have pages on, say Metal Archives (whose reliability as a source is questionable) but the group itself id effectively unsourcable. Well, I have been unable to source, despite looking quite hard which I guess is not quite the same ;-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, this sounds rather tricky. To be honest mate, I'm not sure how I'd go about doing this... I presume somewhere there would be a site about them, even if not anything official, but I'm afraid that's all I could suggest - this does indeed sound like something difficult to source. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

...

"If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to DragonForce, you will be blocked from editing. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)"

For how long?

Permanantly. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

=\

Why? T'was just a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XAvengedSevenfoldX (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's humour you want, the head over to Uncyclopedia. If you wish to test how to edit articles, go to the sandbox. This is an encyclopedia, and the fact that you have been warned rather than not blocked outright shows that we will at least give you another chance. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sick, thanks.

Rollback

Hello The Haunted Angel, I've granted rollback rights to your account. You would have received rollback had your request for adminship succeeded, and after reading that RfA, no one brought up any misuse or abuse of revert-tools or disruptive reverts on your part, so I see no reason to not give you rollback. Just remember it's for reverting vandalism only. See Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature for more information. Good luck. Acalamari 00:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much! ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 00:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

its on dvd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.9.145.91 (talk) 19:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry. Couldn't that have stayed for 2 minutes? That was for my girlfriend. I won't do it anymore. How did you find it so fast? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicbuff (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Lol, it may have been for someone or whatever, but do it somewhere else, like MySpace or something - this is an encyclopeia. And who knows how I found it so quickly, perhaps I'm God... ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hai/Hello There

Why...hello...

~Ya Boi Krakerz~ (talk) LULZ TEH —Preceding comment was added at 21:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Uhh... sup. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

L.M.N.O.P. Party

Do u know anything about The L.M.N.O.P. Party? I googled it and you came up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stukesm4 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

... The fuck? I just copied and pasted that into Google, and my User Page is right at the top. I'm not even sure what LMNOP is... ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Gorgoroth

Hold on a minute, I thought my version pretty much covered everything in an unbiased way. Everything I put has it's actual facts, no personal opinons, and fair to both sides of the dispute. Because right now, niether Gaahl nor Infernus own's the Gorgoroth name, so how is your version correct? Right now, they are battleing in court, and the papers actually say that while one party is appealing the ownership rights, the name is in a literary limbo, which alows both sides to use the name without suit. Can't we come to some kind of an understanding here? All I'm trying to do is have both sides represented without jumping the gun on who rightfully owns the name. Your version makes it look as if the final court verdict is in Gaahl's favor, which it isn't. At least not yet. They have only gone through half the proceedings and it's going to take some time before we know who actually owns the name. If you cannot help out with this, then how about creating a seperate page for Infernus' version, because technically, right now it's legitimate that they both are called Gorgoroth. I'm not trying to piss you off or falsify the Gorgoroth page, I'm just trying to show both sides of the story in an unbiased way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolendallas (talk • contribs) 02:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The Norwegian Patent Office has declared (as the sources on the page will attest) that Gaahl is the official owner of the name; the fact that they are battling out in court who owns the name has been mentioned, but Infernus has no official ownership on the band. The article hold a neutral POV, and represents the fact that officially, "Gorgoroth" belongs to Gaahl, not Infernus. ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

you still don't see the facts. Neither Gaahl NOR Infernus owns the name right now. Gaahl has only won 1 of 2 parts of the court proceedings. A final verdict has not been decided yet. You say I'm going by what Infernus say's, but YOU are only going by what Gaahl says. That's why there are tow, TWO! official websites. Because Gaahl doesn't have the right to have Infernus' website deleted like the other unofficial sites. Niether sides own it right now. I have looked at the legal papers, as can anyone else, and it says, that if the ownership of the name is being appealed, it cannot be owned by one party. I've asked before, but you have not answered, how about a seperate page for Infernus' side? I think that if my version of Gorgoroth's wiki cannot be correct by your standards, why not this solution? I'm trying to as civil and understanding as possible, but you are being very biased and unfair about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolendallas (talk • contribs) 02:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolendallas (talk • contribs) 03:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not being bias - simply because the evidence I have is in Gaahl's favour, it means nothing. You have not provided any sources to contradict the references that have already been stated. As far as the evidence has shown, Gaahl is the rightful owner of the name. Officially, there are no "band version 1" and "band version 2" ideals, Gorgoroth is simply Gaahl and King. Infernus' version hardly warrants its own article, but instead a mention int he article (it should not be portrayed however that Gorgoroth IS two seperate bands, as legally, it is Gaahl's). ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have also now added a chunk at the bottom of the biography which expands on the Infernus version. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could live with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bolendallas (talk • contribs) 20:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

?????

From fenderesk user i nwiki?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fenderesk (talk • contribs) 22:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, in English? ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop changing Dimmus genre. They are symphonic BLACK metal. Just because they have become commercialised does not mean crap to a genre. And dont tell me I know nothing about black metal, i probably know more underground bands than you ever will —Preceding unsigned comment added by Texplosion (talk • contribs) 03:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of you telling me not to change their genre under the declaration that you know more about black metal than anyone, you should learn the rules of Wikipedia, discuss it on the band's talk page, and show a little Etiquette. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Coheed-

This band's genre is heavily disputed, with the majority of mainstream music journalism acknowledging them as emo, or emo-prog at best. Your revisions show clear POV to help establish this relatively unimportant band as important to the genre of prog instead of being labeled properly as radio-friendly pop-prog. Their lyrics are targeted directly at the same fans of other bands within the emo genre, as is clearly shown by the choice of bands they tour with.

Put aside your bias and do the encyclopedic thing: properly classify this band as being related to emo. I will do my very best to bring this to the attention of other editors and revisionists to keep this band where it belongs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, their lyrics, you'll see, are based off Coheed's comic book series - The Amory Wars. Secondly, it's not their choice who they tour with, it'd be the record company's. But, most importantly, I'm not saying that they are NOT emo, but there is no definite clarification on their genre besides "prog rock", as it's debated. As an encyclopedia, it isn't our duty to say they ARE or ARN'T emo, it's our duty to say that it has been disputed, which is shown in the "genre" section. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If you have an issue with Coheed's genre Talk:Coheed and Cambria may be a better place propose any changes. Assuming you can back them up. Rehevkor (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the citations in the actual article. Two pro-prog citations, both from the label and the band, neither of which is close to neutral. Emo has half a dozen citations from music magazines and critical sources. Emo-prog or emo both fit more than prog, as prog is not backed up by any neutral sources. Do you guys understand journalism or encyclopedic standards on neutrality? It's your duty to not list them as "progressive rock" in the opening sentence without qualifiers. That's some POV pushing bullshit right there. Their comic book series is itself sob-story emo, so how does that back up your claims that their lyrics are what, progressive and respected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your very argument borders on the POV itself. Please discuss this on the talk page - but I will say once more here: it is not our job to say that they ARE emo, when there is a debate (nor are we saying they ARN'T, we are showing the argument), however, there has been no dispute on them being prog. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

There is SERIOUS dispute on their status as a prog band. They're being pushed as prog by their label, and yet almost every major musical journal and magazine refers to them as emo, or emo-prog. They tour with emo bands. Their fans group them with other emo bands. You are pushing your own pro-prog POV on a band that is listed, in the article, as emo with four positive citations. At least speak of the debate in the opening article. If you even listened to prog, you'd know you're putting up bullshit with false certainty. It's sad that a teenage fan of an emo band is allowed to pretend at grandeur by proxy for this band and is allowed to warn me away from making the article less POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide a reliable source on their dispute as a prog band? There is a lot of Coheed's stuff (only one of their videos though, I'm afraid) that is prog - but it seems to be the initial people seeing their most popular songs calling them emo. And the article has been brought to a very NPOV area; once you provide reliable sources on their disputed status of "prog", I'll add that in also. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Coheed and Cambria -> watered down faux-prog crafted out of a screamo/pop punk band by a record label intent on avoiding the stigma of "emo." You're defending them because you're gullible and haven't listend to any real prog bands. They are a ham-fisted corporate effort that still retain their screamo/girl rock roots. And cry more about personal attacks, you're deliberately avoiding the obvious fact that their genre is contended enough for the first paragraph of their wiki to be biased POV and deserving of revision. Don't let your spoonfed music taste affect the neutrality of the article. Label them as a controversy in the opening paragraph or remove yourself from the ranks of editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.34.217.190 (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how people will say "you never listen to prog bands" or "you never listen to black metal" (in the case of other articles I edit) when they feel their POV is right, when in fact, I do... ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish Demo

Hello. I edited that part of the article because it is merely wrong/incorrect/unreliable/lacks source. Also, I deleted that so-called "nightwish demo" picture several times because that record was never released. Actually, it didn't even exist. Have you no Nightwish related knowledge? If you don't, how can you delete anything I've written? I'm expecting a prompt and argument-supported reply to this. I spent quite a lot of time to gather that information yesterday. It even is in the FAQs on the Official Forum. The mods know what they're doing, you know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deutschesm (talk • contribs) 17:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I reason I reverted your edits was because you provided no edit summary, and had no rationale for removing this information, therefore it appeared to be vandalism. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I did not know it was absolutely NECESSARY to write a summary of my editing. I'm not writing that again anyway. But I warn you, the info about the Nw Demo is wrong. at least the picture is. :| every, absolutely every official released record can be found on their official website. Do you see it anywhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deutschesm (talk • contribs) 20:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

It's encouraged to use the Edit Summary, but not necessary - however, to remove something like that without a reason, does indeed look like vandalism - however, I wouldn't take their site as a definate proof for or against the demo existing - another example would be say, the Cradle of Filth website. It (or used to) show every major release, but not their early demos. However, the fact that there is not a single source for this demo makes me sceptical as to it's existence. If you wish to deny this album's existence, I'd put it up for deletion. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Amory Wars character/row

A tag has been placed on Template:Amory Wars character/row requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I added a page, would appreciate some feedback and tips.

Hey there,

I recently added Ian Weinbergand am wondering what other sort of citations I should use to verify the information... For some reason your name came up when I did a search, you think you could help me out?

Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoWino (talk • contribs)

Hey there - just to let you know, you've gotten off to a great start with your first page (much better than me with my first page!). I have changed some of the citations you've made around so that it fits in with the manual of style. Mostly, it was a simple matter of taking the correct citations that you made and then moving them up to the actual text (you can move them around to more specific areas when you feel you want to) and adding the <ref> and </ref> before and after the citations, and then adding the {{reflist}} at the end under the new "References" header I made. The full edit can be seen here, so look over it and see if you understand it all. Also, WP:CITE should be of some help. One last thing, when posting on talk pages, please sign your name by just adding four tildes (~~~~) at the end, which will automatically add you name there. Have fun, mate! ^_^ ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth

Actually, it is your OPINION thats its original, based off of something you've seen in a vampire and ghost fansite apparently. The original is an Ouroborous Slavic dragon. Your source is not a trusted source and doesn't count, for all we know you or some other Cradle fan made. And your still a little slow on that your source, even if it was trustworthy, is not a source that states it was based off of the original, it is merely a source that shows what the original may of looked like, any connections between those two are your OPINIONS. Find a source from Cradle that says where they got the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added that source, neither had I actually read it before hand. On the subject of "that you or any other Cradle fan made" - that sounds fairly ridiculous, as you could just as well say that about any topic on Wikipedia. I'm not arguing this because I think there's a source that was added that proves it, it seems to be fairly obvious as the only difference was the back ground (at one point there was a picture of the original on Wikipedia, which was linked from this article, but it got deleted). It's like saying that the Sigil of Baphomet requires a source to say it was based off a pentagram. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:43, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thats pretty stupid, but like I've been saying, the symbol for the original Order of the Dragon (the pictures in that article are said to be based off of the remains of stuff in a Museum in Austria, not in Austria) doesn't look like that, the one used for a source is a fake. It doesn't make sense for it to look like that, if you want to go outside of the box and use sense rather than source, Eastern European (specifically Hungarian, but the dude founded it after he conquered parts of Bosnia and stuff and he was the Holy Roman Emperor) dragons looks like snakes with wings. That dragon looks like the red dude on the Welsh flag but in an action pose. There was also some lapping apparently between the Order of the Dragon and the Order of the Dragon of St. George (not sure about your history skills but the St. George who killed the Dragon, became the patron Saint of half of the world including England, parts of Russia and Georgia, which is named after him because thats where he did it, which is even further east, other side of the Black Sea) that and supposed colours of the original bring evidence that its a zmey and not a Y Ddraig Goch. While the idea that the article was made by a Cradle fan seems kinda paranoid, its not meant to be taken seriously, I just like to keep an open (some might say pessimistic) mind, and where did that fansite get the image? I doubt they went to Austrian or Budapest, internet seems more likely, but for all we know he scanned it up off of a Cradle merchandise, either way it's quite possible that that image is based off of Cradle imagery, that would be circular logic, my favourite kind, but only in real life and when it helps me win or confuse (which can be another form of a win). That dragon isn't even an ouroborous, thats one thing I'm pretty sure the original is supposed to do. Also, on a side not, Cradle's is trodding on a cross and has a crescent moon above, (a pretty common Muslim symbol). That would be their additive, the anti-Christ stuff (personnally I hate the Father more than the Son, one burns cities and imprisons people in whales the other feeds the poor and hands out wine). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.207.191 (talk) 11:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done some research and it seems the closest I can get to the Cradle image is the grainy one in the source - as you seem to know your history on the matter more than I do, I'll take your word for it. I think that the revision of the article about 6 months ago would have made more sense on the matter, as the other picture that this one was meant to be based off was very similar, so much so that it couldn't have been by accident. But again, I can't find any source to back this up, and it seems you have a greater knoweledge of the subject than me, so we'll leave your revision in. Not to mention we can at least agree on your last sentence ^_~ ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool, nice to find someone not willing to argue past all sense. Its a cool name and vaguely popular, especially with Dracula (which means son of the Dragon, his father was Dracul, the dragon, one of the big members of the original order), probably alot of rip offes out there, I wish I could find more proof for it. The actual article was making all kinds of claims about the dragon being a Zulu symbol, it being a pagan Order (despite being founded by a Catholic King and Holy Roman Emperor) and having members who died before or after the order was around). According to our little article on it no real copies of the original still exist, just pictures and written descriptions, another thing agaist the red one. It looks like someone copied the design off of only the words and without considering the type of dragon or the colours properly. Anyways, keep up the good work. It might be good to put an actual paragraph about the fanclub, not all fanclubs are the same, some charge admission, some give deals, some are just a bunch of fans who buy the shirts with symbol on it, no other differences from normal fans.

Re:Power metal

Hmmm, I understand what you mean. To be honest, I can't really say for sure that any of those are their own stand-alone genres. They are definitely styles, though. First off, symphonic power metal is definitely a real style. There's been more and more power metal bands (even Blind Guardian) that have been getting more symphonic. There are definite thrash-power metal bands, though that is usually an older style. Bands like Iced Earth and others in the eighties combined the two genres. Then you look a progressive power metal. That's also usually an older style. Bands like Symphony X and especially Stratovarius fit into this style. Progressive power metal indicates technicality (much like tech death and prog death being the same thing) and most prog power bands usually have neo-classical metal elements and their guitar work is extremely technical. Then you get to the folk power metal style. This is also a definite style. A bit newer and not as mainstream. It usually takes place in the Scandinavian countries. Wintersun and Turisas would be prime examples. As far as "epic metal," I have no idea. I can guess waht it is, but I've never heard of that style before... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but we can't just cite examples of bands who happen to drift between two genres, one being power metal, and saying "here is another power metal sub genre". I can understand how you can say Turisas is folk/power metal, as I'm the one that added them to the power metal page! But as I said, I gave a warning a few months back that if these other genres weren't sourced, they'd be removed. So far, it's original research, and so we'd just have to state on the band pages that they are power metal as well as what other genre they fall under - like on the Nightwish page. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I guess I understand what you're saying. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your cooperation :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, man. I gotta say, a part of me will be sad to see it go, but just because a bunch of bands combine different genres doesn't make that style its own genre. Oh well, on to something else. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I must admit, when I first stumbled across the power metal article, I found it interesting reading - but you summed it up with your second sentence :P ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Laveyan philosophy is a good thing =). It's an atheistic religion anyways. They don't believe in anything except the power of people. They believe in themselves. That's why some theistic satanists hate them. The fact is, Laveyan satanists aren't satanists at all, they are in fact nihlistic and atheistic. The philosophy is good, too, definitely. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

in sorte diaboli

(English translation "A Faithful Connectivity With Satan" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.34.167 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see the link that was provided. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal fashion

What do you think of this article? I think it is incredibly shitty. I put it up for deletion. If you agree (or disagree by some chance) with my reasoning cast your vote, please. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say on the matter, to be honest. I think the subject is relevant, but I have to agree with you when you say it is rather shitty. I mean, the article is a total mess, full of OR and the fact that it is an article of that size without a SINGLE reference really disgusts me. Lol, actually I'd always thought it was a pretty good article (and all the other ones such as the black metal fashion one should be merged into this one), but now that you've actually pointed it out, I do see that it is a bit of a mess. I'll have a wander over to the AfD and see if I can come to a decision myself, as I'm a bit on the fence at the moment, mainly due to my second sentence. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally understand what you are saying. Perhaps when you go to the AfD page and read the whole discussion that will help you come to a conclusion. If the article does end up being kept, it will need a comprehensive rewrite, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, np.

Yes, I deliberately performed vandalism on that page. It's so biased and flawed, though, the information I added to, that it was rather hard to resist doing that. Reading the hypocritical statements made by the original author ticked me off, so I made the choice to give him a verbal 'finger.' Still, you did the right thing I think, so no hard feelings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acescouter (talk • contribs) 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you realise that the statements you vandalised weren't edits made by another Wikipedia user, but are simply copied and pasted from the official Church of Satan website? No hard feelings, of course, I just wish to make sure you know who you were addressing. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Saw

Ere Haunted. Explain Saw to me! Firstly, who's the guy with the key in his stomach that Amanda has to kill? What the fuck did that guy do?! He doesn't get a game - he just gets killed! No explanation in the film, and I even played the commentary and got no joy there either. And in a linked question... I don't get how Jigsaw justifies putting innocents in harm's way: Cary Elwys' family, Donnie Wahlberg's son, the cop's daughter in 3... There's supposed to be rigorous logic to who his victims are, but he doesn't seem to care much for collateral damage! What's your take? I reckon the Saw pages on here could do with this info. Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the guy Amanda has to kill was her drug dealer - I read that somewhere, and I think (although I have my doubts) that it's in the comic that was released. I have that lying about somewhere, so I'll see if I can dig it out and see if it's mentioned. If not, I think we have to presume that the guy with the question mark at least did something... as for putting certain innocents in the way; I do agree that Jigsaw seems not to care for collateral damage there. The games with the people who "deserve it", I can at least see Jigsaw's logic, but the children who could die because of someone else's mistakes seems to be, as you rightly said, just "collateral damage", which doesn't seem that fair, to be honest. Ah well; as for mentioning this info on the Saw pages - if we can find out who the guy with the question mark (who Amanda had to kill) is, it deffinatly deserves a mention (if it hasn't already) - as for mentioning how Jigsaw would allow innocents to die: this is where it gets a bit controversial. Depending how we word it, it could count as POV or OR, so we have to tread carefully. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I thought I was missing something but clearly they just make no sense! I still like them though. ;-p People have said that about question-mark guy being Amanda's drug dealer on the IMDB messageboards, but it's certainly not backed up anywhere in the film. And it's not like she seems to recognise him (although I guess she's somewhat distracted...) If it's in a comic or some subsequent media it must be a retcon. Anyway, further investigation called for... Cardinal Wurzel (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of the info in the comic is contradicted in Saw IV anyway; so I'm guessing most of it is retconned. I think officially, there is no definate answer on who that guy is - but as I said, I'll keep looking and see if I can find something official to back it up; although I did think after I first heard that he was the dealer that she didn't seem to recognize him. It wouldn't surprise me though, if the writers explain who he is in a later film... they have a habit of expanding on minor character's significance throughout the films (such as Obi appearing in a Saw III flashback). ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I wanna to be haunted like you.How can I be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcdabcaba (talk • contribs) 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Move in with a poltergeist =D ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

What tha Fuck?!?

THIS IS NOT VANDELSIM!

I never vandelised a goddamn wiki-thing in my life! I removed the notice because it was old!

YaBoiKrakerz

You did not provide an edit summary - the comment should remain, because the picture is just as likley to be removed by wandering editors now as it would have been back then. Without an edit summary to justify what you did, I could only conclude that it was vandalism - especially given your disdain for the picture the comment was protecting. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well don't blame!!! I'm only 15 years old! I didn't know what mehs was doin'!!!

 >:(     >:(    >:(

YaBoiKrakerz

hi

Sudar 4edi (talk) 11:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)sudar 4edi

Hello... ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For protecting my page against that dumbass vandal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. I've got your page on my watchlist, so I try to keep an eye out for any vandalism. (Don't worry, I'm not a stalker, I just have a few editor's pages on my watchlist incase they get vandalised ^_~) ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lol, same here, it's all good. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, my name is Ray Mihtar, iam the brother and manager of Professional Boxing prospect Brian Mihtar, I was wondering if you could please cut and paste and clean up the following Bio on him. I would really appreciate it. I am having a hard time with wikepedia.

Thank you

Brian Mihtar was born August 18th, 1979 to Mahyoub and Dawla Mihtar in Detroit, Michigan. Brian was able to avoid the temptations of the mean streets of Detroit, Michigan and began boxing at the age of 15. Brian had a short but successful amateur career winning about 85% of his fights. Mihtar fought top notch competition including the likes of Olympian Anthony Dirrell who coincidentally was his last amateur fight, a close decision loss. " My style of fighting was not suited for the amateurs but I made the most of the experience." stated Mihtar.

Prior to turning pro Mihtar begin training at the famed kronk gym in Detroit under Emannuel Steward who trained him for his first 3 professional bouts. Brian turned pro June 27, 2003 at the famed Joe Louis arena scoring a 1st round knockout. Mihtar has shown devastating power scoring 8 knockouts in 9 fights and now is being trained by Buddy McGirt. In March of 2008 Mihtar would sign with promoter Gary Shaw giving him all that was missing in his career which was a solid promoter. "Gary is the top promoter out there and I will deliver for him since he believed enough in me to sign me." stated Mihtar.

Mihtar is Arabic and is a devoted practicing Muslim. His family is from the country of Yemen in the Middle East. If that country sounds familiar in terms of boxing it's because former popular featherweight champion Naseem Hamed is also a native of the country. Mihtar is the only known active fighter from the Middle East in the United States and knows and welcomes the expectations for him to be successful. “I know that all my countrymen of the Middle East are counting on me to become a successful world champion and I don't see it as pressure but as a privilege. I'm very proud of my Arab Background and look forward to becoming and world champion and opening doors for future fighters from my homeland."

Mihtar is married to his wife Arwa and the couple have a 3 year old son named Ismael. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haroon9977 (talk • contribs) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey; just to let you know, not all people qualify for individual articles and such; although you've mentioned your brother, before we can make an article on him, we need a few sources and references to back up this information - as well as information enough to show that he is notable. ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kenny Dies

An editor has nominated Kenny Dies, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. 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 "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 by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Dies and 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. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Query

Could you please clarify your last comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Dies ? - It is unclear whether you mean that it is encouraged for articles to be expanded/sourced prior to an WP:AfD discussion, or discouraged for that to happen during an AfD discussion. Personally I feel that this practice should be encouraged, in both situations. Cirt (talk) 00:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant that it's a shame that it has to come to an AfD until an article is cleaned up with sourced and such - although I agree with you that it should be encouraged in both situations. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, thanks for the reply. Cirt (talk) 00:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

This place sux

Im leaving this place. It sux. Blue Laser (talk) 01:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

... Goodbye, then. ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

• April FoolS!!!!! Blue Laser (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol, I thought it might be somehow... EVula did a similar thing. I'm guessing a few have! ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Weezer - Hard 'r'ock

Hey THA,

Thanks for correcting that! I'm a news reporter on another site so the need for capitalizations in general is always in my head, so much so that it has become a habit.

Kudos,

Aaron. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CZMQFRG (talk • contribs) 19:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

No probs :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

wanna learn more

hi id like to learn more buzz me at zippmeup69@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.119.201 (talk) 18:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really into emailing people with information on Wikipedia, when it can be read simply, here. Enjoy. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Your Hidden Page

I am sorry but your hidden page is under the MfD. Please do not remove the template. To contest the deletion please go to the discussion. Which can be found here. I am sorry for the inconvenience. Let's hope there is no need for deletion. Rgoodermote  20:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Henri Legay

The speedy deletion tag was placed a mere minute after I created the article, and before I had time to make additions. I had not yet finished adding to the article, and placing a speedy delete tag so soon virtually allowed me no opportunity. In the future please allow a reasonable amount of time to pass (e.g., a few hours to a day, and definitely more than 1 min) before placing a speedy delete tag. I don't write articles or papers etc. in one fell swoop and I bet many others are like me in this regard. It can be disconcerting to see a speedy delete tag up as soon as an article is created. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadesus (talk • contribs) 21:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The speedy deletion tag can be added a minute after article creation; if you read the template, you will see that it mentions that if you do not agree with the tag, add the {{hangon}} template to the article also. Ideally, the article should be written and worked on in either your user page or a personal sandbox before creating the actual article in question; although there are enough sources now, they should really have been added in the beginning - or after the {{hangon}} template had been added. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:C&C logo2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:C&C logo2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IllaZilla (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Sunn O))) and black metal

I think your assumption is correct. They've also had a lot of collaborations with members of the black metal scene, not just Attila (on other albums). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Feel free to do some research on it and what not, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

reasoning

im sorry i promise to put it back the way it was i just needed to change really quick so my dad could read it cuz he just took my phone which had a bunch of their songs on it and i dont want him to delete it so i have to make him believe its all christiany because he doesnt understand art which is what cradle of filth truly is i love this band its like my favorite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblue69 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid it doesn't work like that; even if you mean to put it right in the end, we are an encyclopedia, and you are distrupting our work - please do not vandalise the article again. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

im sorry. but yeah no excuses but if ppl really know the band that will research it they knnow the truth cuz i just changed words to the word christian metal instead of extreme metal. im really sorry but i had to do it. no excuses im sorry plus im a bit young so yeah. :( im really sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblue69 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's alright, as long as you don't do it again, then you'll have a good time here :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

yay! i promise. but i feel stupid cuz i got my phone back and he aint even make me take off the songs but at least i had a backup plan. lol i was on hunger strike for nothing i didnt eat breakfast lunch or dinner this whole day lolz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblue69 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

yeah im sorry and i promise. but i feel stupid cuz he didnt even make me delete em but at least i had a back up plan. and its even stupider cuz i was on a hunger strike this whole day i aint eat breakfast lunch or dinner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyblue69 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

Why did you revert my edit? why, are you secretly dumb?

--Captain Coolguy (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I haven't reverted any edits of yours (the only two edits you've made are to my user page, and a redirect which I will be putting up for speedy deletion). Secondly, please keep personal attacks of Wikipedia. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Maddox

I feel like Adam Sandler on the airplane scene in Anger Management, where everything I say is deemed inappropriate by some tool asking me to "calm down." Listen -- if anybody is damaging the "community," it is the user who I "personally attacked." He is running around Wikipedia, frivolously reverting innocent users' edits under the guise that they are vandalism; and when I finally set this guy straight when his wrath was turned to me, you come around and delete my comments so he doesn't get the message. I suggest you look into this user's contributions, instead of deleting mine, and you will see who is really damaging the community.

Personally, I don't care about the situation with Maddox - all I noticed was you calling him a twat; I'll say this straight forward - personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, at all. If you wish to discuss it with Nav, then do so calmly, without reverting to name-calling. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the vandalism and whatnot (again) Haunted Angel. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, mate. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Question...

How do you put the "Contents" chart on your user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Feral Mind (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The contents chart will appear after you have so many headers in your actual user page - I think it's about three or four; same as with actual articles. ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Revert

Just a head's up, it wasn't me that added the link to the Coheed article, it was User:Decentxcom. Ta! Rehevkor (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I know, don't worry I saw it :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Brit

Hey Brit. Just checking in wiht you. I miss our old friendship before that faulty checkuser tore us apart. I still like you angel in spite of you and your horrible actions believing that I was guilty. I wasnt and to this day I maintain my innocence and whether you believe me or not dont change the fact, a innocent man was accused. But I want things to go back the way they were before the fall out and before I was creully banned. So how are you? I still like you. American Brit the Third (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

*pop* EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters

You're invited to the above. --Bardin (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Evening Angel

Its me american brit with my fifth account. I really am just wanting to be a editor again. I love Wikipeid and in spite of you and EVula turning against me I still like you un's. I want to come back for good, simply cause of a faulty checkuser I was banned and ruputation was ruined. So speak to EVula or Majory for me and see if we can sweep this all under the rug and make things what they once were. I want to make up at last and repair all that was destroyed simply cause of that faulty checkuser Your friend American Brit!!! American Brit the fifth (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

No sweeping; I'm a slob. EVula // talk // ☯ // 00:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

South Park Articles

Hey man, I just wanted to say thanks a lot, you're one of the few who makes good edits to the South Park articles, and backs me and a few others up against all the idiots who turn Wikipedia into a fan site. Thanks! Professor Chaos (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, mate - I've seen your edits to the SP articles, so I owe just as much thanks to you for help with them! ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Have a Heart

Please let me return to wikipedia! If you all allow me to stay and edit I wont ever bother you or EVula or Majory again! I just want my old life back on here, the good old days of Wikipedia. Can we not try to make things better? As I said if you allow me to stay on here I shall never ever contact you again. Just please have a heart —Preceding unsigned comment added by American Brit the seventh (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

/me waves bye-bye EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

I wanted to ask you a question, since you're a fan of heavy metal. Me and another user have been having some problems on the Shadows Fall page. I'm not a fan of their music but I noticed that someone had put thrash metal as one of their genres and I immediately changed it to metalcore, as I believe that is the style of music they play. Now the other editor didn't agree with this and we had a little edit war. Well now I want to gather some consensus on it so we can resolve the issue. If you go here you may vote on what genre(s) you think Shadows Fall has played. Thanks. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, if you need any help with anything feel free to let me know. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Naufragiaphobia

Naufragiaphobia is a common fear experienced by divers. Complete your Open Water and you will know this from the entry exam. The panic caused by Naufragiaphobia often results in divers experiencing "the bends" and has been documented in Diver Magazine (UK) several times. Please do your homework before causing wikipedia conflicts which stop other users reading more specialised articles. Nick Blackford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.11.43 (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me? Could you be more specific about what exactly you're talking about? ≈ The Haunted Angel

Saw traps edit.

If you actually read the interview linked on the Orignal Ideas section of the Saw traps list, for "The Bathroom Trap", you'll notice that Leigh Whannel doesn't actually state the original idea for Saw. He says:

We were using films like "Blair Witch" as a template. We were like if we shoot it on video, if we have two cast members and it's all in one room, that I think we can do. And then we spent another month coming up with all these bad ideas like "Okay, it's two guys, and they're stuck in an elevator for the entire movie, and the whole movie is seen through the security camera!" All these sort of lame, gimmicky ideas about how we could do something super-cheap and one day, the idea for "Saw" popped out.

As you can planely see from the quote, the elevator idea, and the bathroom idea are completely unrelated, and in the time scale Leigh is refering to, the idea for Saw came AFTER the idea for the elevator, so there is no connection. I ask that this section be removed as it is inaccurate.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.96.75 (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I realise now what you were talking about - but at the time you didn't justify your edit, you simply removed the content, and so it looked like vandalism - I saw your second edit where you used the edit summary - and so I will remove the warning from your user page - you are free to remove the content which you originally removed once more. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:55, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Theistic Satanism

I'd love it if you could take a look at version 2.0 and let me know what you think/make improvements.:) Sticky Parkin 23:04, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Woah... that's looking so much better now! Looks far more professional than the previous version - on it's way to being a GA I'd say! Good work on that! ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

One bit we all (which will probably cause rows lol) need to consider (again?) is which groups are included. Sticky Parkin 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it will need a bit of discussion, but I don't think it's gonna' be that huge a problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope you like the pics:) Feel free to format them, I couldn't get the top one to grow a bit. Not sure what happened to the format there for a while lol. Sticky Parkin 01:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed the pics being added - the top one is at the largest it'll go, unfortunatly. The article's looking a whole lot better now! ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So how do we improve it some more before we apply for GA in a few months lol? It'd be the first GA I've been involved in 'growing'. I fear there's still a tinge of WP:OR in parts and we need even more sources (!) for some sections, which have hardly any. :(Sticky Parkin 01:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well first we need to get rid of that very odd format where everything is going onto the line below for no reason... but that's not really drastically important. You're right when you say we need more sources - as many as possible to back up each statement the article makes. This page should be able to explain it better than I could. ≈ The Haunted Angel 01:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly change the refs for one particular book that for some reason I can't get to look neater like the others? Then I'll stop pestering you and work on removing any WP:OR and adding another 15 or so sources.:) I'll look at your link after I've improved it that much. My personal model for a GA article is Gillian McKeith. Sticky Parkin 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've made a couple of edits to clean the refs up - are any of those the ones you meant? And don't worry, you're not pestering me - I want this article to be a GA just as much :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes that's the ones:) I wonder why it wouldn't make its title a link like the other ones? Do you have a bot that posts to both yours and other person's talk pages? I assume not. I was just thinking that you might just do one or the other, and save yourself some work. But I suppose it's nice to see "you have new msgs" and also to have all the info in one place.:) Sticky Parkin 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Having major probs with the article today! It won't accept my changes and keeps strangely removing and joining together sections, I've cleaned up the bit about the black mass etc and it won't let me put it in. I can only think I'm editing in some special way.:) Luckily I've emailed myself the bit I did. Sticky Parkin 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Your next RfA

Think they're ready for you yet?:) Sticky Parkin 23:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I do hope so - I am a little wary after the last one; even though I think that the end result was a little unfair, I can't deny that I should have acted a bit better, so I have no one really to blame but myself. I think failing the last RfA was the proof that I still had a couple of things left to learn, which I think I have now. If you think that I'm ready, then I'll be happy to accept the nomination :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 12:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be the best person at the moment and probably shouldn't have said anything:). Here are too little suggestions- link to your talk page in your sig as well as userpage, and seriously consider enabling email. Sticky Parkin 13:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, well I'll keep that in mind - I could have sworn that I'd enabled email in the past... Somehow I must have turned it off! Well, we'll fix that. Thanks for your advice :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Haunted has earned my support.Rev. Michael S. Margolin (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you, Michael, and you have earned my deepest respect :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Sorry, this is just a school IP address and most of the kids vandalize this site. Sorry for the inconveniences. --209.66.29.70 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It happenes with my school too, I do know one thing. The Middle School and the High School both share the same IP. YaBoiKrakerz

ruhahahaha :)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#geocities.com.2Fsatanismresource Sticky Parkin 10:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice :P ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

hey Richard. Looks like you do alot with wikipedia. I'm trying to build my page to list my articles of reference, interviews, on camera reporting history and articles for transportation related items. I know its pretty limited right now but how do I atop it from being deleted?Salcowan (talk) 14:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC) sal

Hey Sal - the first thing you'll need to do is ensure that the subject that you are trying to make an article on is notable enough - WP:N should help you decide that. The main reason that articles are ever deleted is because they aren't notable enough, so that should help in that area. Next, instead of creating an article straight away, you should create a draft of it on your User Page. This way, you can write what you have thought of, then add more and more bits to it until you think that it's satisfied the notability criteria - articles are usually deleted as part of the WP:SPEEDY criteria mere minutes after they're completed, so this will be the best way to ensure that the article isn't deleted on sight. Hope that helps! ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:16, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man. If it gets deleted now, and I work out my issues on the user page, can I recreate the page with the same title/subject? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salcowan (talk • contribs) 14:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, provided that the article isn't protected to prevent recreation - but that's usually only done in extreme circumstances. ≈ The Haunted Angel 14:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Gorgoroth

Hurry and revert the person's edits that are vandalizing the Gorgoroth article. I'm going to report him now. (i can't revert anymore for 3RR) Undeath (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

My apologies.

Hey, Richard. I'm sorry about editing you're article like that. I just created an account today to see if it was true that anyone could edit wikipedia. I guess it's true after all. I really didn't intent to upset you in any way. I checked out some of your work on your page and I must say I'm impressed. I don't really understand this 'editing user talk' thing really well so if possible, and I you want to discuss it, I'm a little interested in why you are Athiest. If you don't feel like replying then don't worry about it. Anyway, I'll be praying for you man. Jesus loves you. -David (Dewster)02:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey there - firstly, don't worry about the vandalism. A lot of new editors start off by "testing" Wikipedia - Hell, I did a couple of years back. Now that you know you can edit Wikipedia (which you don't need an account for, but the account does give you a few advantages), just ensure that your future edits are more productive :) Generally, we try to avoid social discussion on the talk pages, but I'd be more than happy to share with you the reasons to my atheist. Firstly, I am very skeptical of anything I see or hear. In the country I live (England), Christianity is obviously the largest Religion, but with Islam also growing in number. Most people will then naturally grow up to be Christian, or Muslim if they are part of a Muslim family, without truely considering it. I'm atheist because I have considered it, and because I see no true evidence towards any deity's existence. Hope that helps illuminate you to my basic perspective a little :) ≈ The Haunted Angel 02:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

How, exactly, is my information not from a reliable source when I not only cite my information to the Federal law enforcement agency it came from, but go so far as to include the file number from that agency?! There is nothing more reliable then straight from the report of the special agents that investigated the case and interrogated Anton LaVey in 1980!

Face it, my edits were removed because someone wants to continue the lies that were started by both LaVey and his Church of Satan. Granted, lying to people to make money off of them is their right. This still does not give you, or anyone else, the right to revoke my right to make edits to the page on Satanism.

My addition of the information regarding "Purist Satanism" was added, by me, because it is even more influential and valid then "Reverse Christians" (which, by the way, no one has ever even heard of other then on the wikipedia page on Satanism)!

If you wish, I will give you my word not to make any changes to the information on any other sect of Satanism on the condition that "Purist Satanism" be returned to the page.

Rev. S. Robb —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucifer2007 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm replying to Rev Robb- I believe "reverse christians" have actually been mentioned in WP:RS- seriously- my reading of the sources is becoming tragically wide.:) Sticky Parkin 22:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

reply

But they made me so angry!

And they erased talk page stuff, not stuff on the main page.

And the points I made are relevant and interesting, even if not agreed to.

And my mode of posting was in the south park style —Preceding unsigned comment added by TCO (talk • contribs) 17:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant - please see the rules on etiquette and civility when posting in talk pages. Calling people "Nazi buttfuckers" will not be tolerated ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)