Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hi. I hope you're okay with my edit on this page: it seems to me like a reasonable compromise if we change the heading of that section so it doesn't potentially mislead readers into thinking sources say something they don't. It's so much nicer when we can come to an agreement :-) BeRhino (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

erm...let me proceed? Mate, don't be so stuck-up. I'm trying to be nice here :S I read policies, so I know about the one about not biting new people too, you should read that. Seriously, you don't own wikipedia, I just read what was going on there and made my contribution. Chill out. BeRhino (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

"second chance" doesn't really work like that...like I say, you shouldn't bite out at folks. I just saw what was going on on that page and tried to help. BeRhino (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You're not a new user. We're not fools. MuZemike 22:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Fezmar, I'd suggest filing a SPI report. tedder (talk) 18:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fezmar. It seems JackShestak is at it again creating articles about subjects that are far from notable. None of those he recently created look notable. I'm thinking we should nominate them for deletion, as it's really unlikely that they've received any significant coverage. I'll do some browsing tomorrow, and if I can't find any coverage, I'll nominate them at AfD. Timmeh 03:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey Timmeh! The three articles I noticed him creating were Rise Against 7", Rise Against / Anti-Flag and Grammatizator. Am I missing any? I personally tried to create an article for Rise Against / Anti-Flag earlier this year but could not find any good sources. I actually have a copy, and if it didn't say DGC Records, I would say it was a bootleg or something. There are no liner notes or anything. Rise Against 7" might have some good sources. I'd say out of the three articles, that would probably be the most notable. Notable enough for an article? We will have to research that one. It will probably need to be moved to Rise Against (EP), and "Grammatizator" could possibly be merged with it too. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

When I tried to make Rise Against / Anti-Flag earlier this year, the only reliable source I could find was one interview that only said it existed with no further details. And I can't even find that anymore, so I will support an AFD for that one. Outside of the two first-party sources for "Grammatizator," I can't find anything. There is a digital single for this song on iTunes, so the information could be merged with Rise Against 7" and Rise Against discography, but there isn't enough for this single to have its own article. The self-titled 7" seems to have the most sources. Here's what I found: Punknews.org, AbsolutePunk, Alternative Press, Aversion and a partial listing on Allmusic. Not sure if you would consider that enough. I wouldn't mind keeping it. This could also be merged with Appeal to Reason as both tracks on the EP are from those recording sessions. Fezmar9 (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've nominated Rise Against / Anti-Flag for deletion per your comments and my own search. The self-titled 7" does look like it has some coverage, although I'm not sure if there's enough. The Punknews.org and AbsolutePunk articles are unreliable because they were written by just regular members of those sites (as opposed to staff members). I'm not sure about the Aversion article; I don't see any author, so I'd lean toward it being unreliable as well. The Alternative Press article looks reliable, though, and I'll do some searching later to see if I can find any more coverage. "Grammatizator" is easily unreliable, but whether it's deleted or merged will likely depend on if it has any third-party coverage and on what happens to Rise Against 7". Timmeh 15:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I found an interview conducted a week ago with Joe Principe of Rise against [1]. It mentions both the single and 7".

RF.net: Exactly! It's a shame. If we take a look at your discography as a whole, starting from the first album. In my opinion there's a tendency that every album introduces a slightly louder pop element to the mix. Not in the sense of pop like what we hear in radio, but the songs are catchier and you're getting more fans in the process. Do you think that you're gonna continue this same trend in the next albums, are you gonna write more, say, softer punk rock, or are we gonna see Rise Against write another pedal-to-the-floor punk rock record?

Joe: You know, I don't know! Because we don't write a one specific time period. Like Tim & I will write on our own throughout the year and whatever we feel at the time. Such as "Appeal To Reason", that's just what came out of us last year, or two years ago when we were writing it. But then we just put out that 7" on Fat Records and those songs are definitely older sounding, and we wrote those the same time. So just whatever we're feeling at the time.

RF.net: Yeah that one was like you lost a bet to Fat Mike right?

Joe: [laughs] well that was a joke, we didn't really lose a bet, but we liked those songs but they didn't really fit on "Appeal To Reason", so we talked to Fat Mike and we thought it'd be cool to do something on Fat Records again. Luckily our label let us do it. But yeah those songs are fun, we haven't played them live yet, but I'd like to.

RF.net: Would that many people would know them though? They're only on vinyl, right, or I don't know if you can buy them digitally as well?

Joe: You can buy "Grammatizator", well you can buy it on iTunes in the states, I don't know if it's in iTunes over here. I think it might be, because iTunes started doing digital LPs and digital 45s, so it's a digital 45 with a live version of "Hero Of War". Fezmar9 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As someone closely related to the old members of memphis may fire it has come to my attention that you keep changing my information. The information that I have changed it correct because I know these people personally. Chase's real last name is Robbin's and Tanner Oakes is a former member. Please stop changing these items because what I have is accurate.

Again, I'm a reliable source. Please stop changing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanessaoakes (talk • contribs) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I protected 2010 in heavy metal music for 3 months, which should help against the Prophanti socks. Please create a WP:LTA style report, probably just in your userspace (like User:Fezmar9/Prophaniti sockpuppetry) to explain what has happened. I'm sure editors will come along asking for details that can't be easily answered with a link to WP:SPI. tedder (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware this was even an option. Thanks tedder! Fezmar9 (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

An article has been started at User:Fezmar9/Prophaniti sockpuppetry. Is this something that User:Prophaniti should link to? Fezmar9 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, yes I do have the copy of the magazine. Converge's Axe to Fall was ranked #2 on the list. It's on page 28, issue #130. Thanks LostLikeTearsInRain (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

you removed the singles i put in the template, because u said that the template was supposed to contain links, but there are a variety of band templates that have information without links: Template:Senses Fail Template:Story of the Year Template:Saosin Template:Armor for Sleep Template:The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus to name a few. the template is sopposed to contain all the information about a band's albums, singles, EPs, and members. for these reasons i will put the HH singles back in the HH template. conact me if there is an issue. --♫Chris-B-Koolio♫ 23:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You accuse me and others of original research and opinion, when ur the one adding a Punk Rock band (Cancer Bats) and a rock band (AC/DC) to a heavy metal list. "AC/DC are an Australian rock band formed in 1973 by brothers Malcolm and Angus Young." and "Cancer Bats is a hardcore punk band from Toronto, Ontario, Canada". I rest my case. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ant smusher (talk • contribs) 23:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

the quotations are ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.49.110.184 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I see you have found a PRINT edition of Spin magazine. GREAT. Please just reference it and not include a webpage url to a 'different' rating. That 'combined' ref notation goes to two sources. I'd suggest dropping the 'unclear' url source.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure what you mean. What are the two sources I am combining? Fezmar9 (talk) 07:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

"Ready, Aim, Fire! Waging battle against fan fatigue, Jared Leto calls upon the ghosts of rock's past and present"

^ there is an url linked to the above text in the reference number 9 that goes to the 'dreaded' online rating.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

and perhaps the print article has a different title to it? that would be shown instead.—Iknow23 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

...but it's the exact same review. "Dreaded" or otherwise, the review in the physical magazine is word for word (sans "Ready, Aim, Fire!") exactly the same as the one posted online. We are no longer sourcing the website, we are sourcing the magazine. The url link is now being used as a copy for a reader without a Spin subscription, not a source. In fact, the physical magazine uses ten stars, so as far as I'm concerned what's on the website might as well be a user rating. Fezmar9 (talk) 08:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are suggesting to use the url as a convenience link for those w/o a physical copy. I would recommend against that, as that is what has been problematic (their on-line 'rating'). Is is ok to cite a reference to only a physical book, publication etc. If you really want to use the online 'rating' AND the physical rating, they should be split into separate reference citations. However the 'star' rating reflects ONLY the print copy, so the online 'rating' would be inappropriate as to what is being displayed.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

If you leave the link to the website, it is still being sourced.—Iknow23 (talk) 08:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Misfits - Land of the Dead.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, if the abuse is ongoing and severe then I recommend adding a section on WP:LTA. Triplestop x3 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is metalcore, not post-hardcore. I don't need no verifiability, listen to the album you twat. I will have you banned if you continue this editing war/ vandalism of Vanna (Band). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.129.168 (talk) 04:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello there. If you edit the Vanna page once more, I will have an administrator ban you from wikipedis permanently. Thank you. Here is the proof from a reliable source, note how it says Vanna is a metalcore band. http://www.bombshellzine.com/newspage/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1775 Thank you.Iamhorney (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I guess I stirred the hive of music fans out there huh? I've come to ask you personally what you think of the current format of the 2010 in music page? What is the issue of regionalized pages and specific genre articles. If people are so hell bent on having an international site, then why not add to the specific genre articles - which aren't limited to regions? I am a strong music fan, but upon looking at the 2009 in music article, I found myself somewhat overwhelmed with artists from everywhere. I figured that if each pages' structure was left like this, lag time would make the page nearly inaccessible for dial-up Wikipedians. I'm an organizer - a product of Obsessive–compulsive disorder, and I'm getting in contact with User:DerbyCountyinNZ, whom is very strict on US-bias to help me police the page (Look at how tight the rules are with the 2010 article. I remembered you when you commented on the move before I made it,

• So you will just be more or less moving stuff around to new pages and not altering the content? Fezmar9 (talk) 18:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You too, have made additions to the 2010 in heavy metal music article in the past, so could you help me with the specific genre articles? I think that they will please everyone because of their international nature. (Tigerghost (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC))

Just thought that I'd let you know that I took your advice and created another new page devoted solely for the Albums. It can be found here, List of Albums released in 2010. What do you think? I don't know how to procede with the albums already listed in the regional pages, but I'm happy with this new page. There is some alphabetizing work to be done, but all of it is there; no regionalized stuff, completely international. (Tigerghost (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Axe to Fall has few reviews listed at Metacritic's webpage; currently the half of reviews that Sunn O)))'s Monoliths & Dimensions received. Ha!--Cannibaloki 20:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday, I saw several of these year-end lists, including Metacritic, but I did not realize the amount of reviews that this site was listed for Axe to Fall. Metacritic should set a limit of 15 reviews [for example] for all albums that are listed on its website.--Cannibaloki 21:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lazy employees and fans of Converge! Seriously, I think you should nominate Axe to Fall for consideration for good article status.--Cannibaloki 23:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will help you. --Cannibaloki 23:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

---

As you said you are too lazy, I decided to nominate Axe to Fall for good article candidacy.--Cannibaloki 04:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

HAHA, yes very lazy indeed. Will there be a review similar to the FLC for Cave In discography? Fezmar9 (talk) 05:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the article will be reviewed by one person only. Stay alert!--Cannibaloki 20:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the pointers! I intend on replacing those references with better ones when better ones are available.--♫ Chris-B-Koolio ♫ ... (Talk) 02:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You repeatedly undo my changes that finch was not a Deftones cover band, or called numb. You also once removed all my information from an interview I had with Drew Doggy, Nate, and R2k. Granted that I can't Cite the interview as it wasn't picked up... I havn't added in the rest of the interview information after you removed it, even though most of the information on the page is not cited anyways...

However, Nate made it very clear that they were NOT a Deftones' Cover band, addressed it outright, and said they were never called Numb. I am arguing that since there is no cite for them starting as "Numb" or a cover band, that information should stay removed. Unless you can provide me with a cite, which I would personally LOVE to see.

I have no interest in editing wiki pages, I originally edited the page as my interview was denied by the mag, and being Finch has been my all-time-favorite-band since 2002, I felt the need to add. Understanding that I couldn't cite my info, i don't refute the other info I added being removed, but I DO REFUTE the cover band thing! I've made a login purely and only to discuss this with you.

I myself thought they started out this way since I started listening to them in 2002 and saw the rumor way back then. However during my interview when I brought this up, Nate Barcalow immediately interrupted me and expressed his contempt over this rumor. Please, at the very least, provide me the honor of leaving the removal of this age-old rumor. I fear un-priveleged fans who have not and will not have the opportunity to meet and talk with the band will also fall victim to this rumor. If you don't concur, then again, I challenge you to cite the band saying the rumor is true. Kriscoleman (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another note, to refute my authenticity: out of the info you removed a couple months ago: I discussed that Drew Doggy was originally in a band called Open Hand when his college roommate hooked him up with Finch. If you look up Open Hand, you will see Drew is listed as a previous member, you should of at least left the fact that he was originally in Open Hand before joining Finch. A little research would of confirmed my statement. Kriscoleman (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriscoleman (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

in response to your reply: thanks for all the lovely information (although I already stated i was aware of the need for cites, and that there is NO cite for them being a cover band), and the compliment, however you removed my change once again, but without adding a cite for the information. I feel that information has every right to be removed, as there is no cite or info saying they started that way, please find one if you're gonna keep undoing my change. Altho all music sadly calls them originally "Numb", they don't mention the cover band. I'm at least removing the cover band thing again, and i'll wait to remove the numb name untill i meet with the band again, this time i'll take video of the interview, and post on youtube for the cite.

summary: without a cite that they started out as a deftones cover band, i'm removing that information again.

and to explain my mention of drew doggy: i once added that he started out in open hand before joining finch and you removed it; however he is listed as a previous member of open hand on their wiki, check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kriscoleman (talk • contribs) 23:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

sidenote: thanks for the compliment on my civility. however i must admit it was hard for me to be civil, i was irate when you undid my changes. Finch has been my all time fave for nearly 10 years, and i've felt the need to even permenantly adorn them on my body with a tattoo (twice). That being said, when my interview was dropped from the mag I felt the need for fans to still have access to the info, after I added it and it was removed I understood that it was because i didn't have cites. I decided to approach it civily (as hostility never works) and with the argument that just as I had no means of citing what I added, there is no cite for them being a deftones cover band. Kriscoleman (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, so I've been busy at work and before going to bed i decided to hop on wiki and see if there was any progress made on Finch... expecting to see the deftones coverband rumor added once again, i was so happy to see you cited a page that concurred with my statement! i never found that interview, and it's funny to note R2K's tone was nearly the same as Nate's was about the issue. Utter Annoyance! I interviewed each of the band seperately (actually missed out on Grizz and Daniel.. they kept to themselves entirely before the show) so when I got the answer from Nate about it, i didn't bother to get Randy's take on it.

But alas, thank you so much for diverging forth and finding this tid bit, and helping to clear this up for the fans. I truthfully felt this would be a long hard battle (not that you were hard to deal with, but rather that the information to cite was nowhere to be found). I'm very pleased to have this cleared up, and i'll try to find something more about the Numb thing. but getting the cover band thing off is a huge weight off my super-fan shoulders!

hearing the news about the youtube cite is dissapointing.. i'm no longer am affiliated with that magazine so posting under them would be impossible. I figured a video with the band or band member stating the facts would be in-arguable, so i'm sort of annoyed with the wiki policies on that one, but perhaps i could convince one of the guys to let me put something up on officialfinch.com, or maybe on the official finch fan page.

as for the civility... i'm glad it paid off. I've had no interest in editing wiki pages, just finch meant so much to me. i'm very happy that it worked out, and i know that being hostile would of just worked against my favor. And I must say, the appreciation of civility goes both ways. Anytime I personally deal with someone unknown over the internet, I always expect hostile, belligerent, cocky attitudes. So it was refreshing for myself as well to deal with your fair, and unbiased responses. Thanks again! Also, thanks for explaining all the guidelines and policies, although I didn't quite need it (for i'm not going to be a wiki editor), i still appreciate the effort and fortitude you put forth to help me, had I chose to.

well met fez! much respect Kriscoleman (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Albums DO NOT go in categories by the genre of them, they are supposed to be used only the artists page. Thus the category for The Powerless Rise is incorrect and is misused — I will fix this once more. Do not revert it again. ...As for everything else

• The external link to their website is already on the main article for As I Lay Dying and plus if an extrernal link only put on the page to link the viewer somewhere about the album is already on the web concerning it being a reliable source, wouldn't that information already be on the article? Pointless as to how I see it. - Also, we don't use MySpace as an EL. See WP:ELNO
• The article looks sloppy being smashed together, most of almost every article on Wikipedia has spaces inbetween the paragraphs. • GunMetal Angel 02:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Over one-hundred articles are on the category because they're are all mistakes, it's best not to add to something that is only going to need to be fixed in years to come. The category is for the artist display only. See Category:deathcore albums as a fine example for what I'm talking about, this is how these types of categories are actually supposed to look like. But furthermore thank you for explaining everything else to finally reach this conclusion. Good day. =] • GunMetal Angel 07:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Just like Kriscoleman, I hate to be hostile... ending up being civil as I always am. So I was the dude who added my own FTFW reviews to wikipedia. At first I did it for fun, but I was - honestly - a little offended after being called unprofessional. I know there's a difference between mags as AP and Kerrang, etc., but the fact that it reaches more people can not count as the definition of professional. Being objective is the keyword here, and though my love for Post-Hardcore bands is infinite, I realize that being objective is more useful than bashing/praising someone's album. You are absolutely right that the site is just a little more than a month old, and I DO NOT want to risk to get the site being banned.

I'm ambitious as hell, and though I can't call myself professional, I do aspire to be professional, if necessary after a few years (maybe some freelance work might help). FTFW is NOT a fanboy thing, it's about spreading the knowledge of recently released albums and the love for music. I wasn't intending on posting EVERY review I made - I swear to god it was only to see how long it would stay on here - and I hope we understand each other right now. Friendly - and not hostile - greetings, JeroenPtrs (talk • contribs) 20:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If this text lacks accuracy when it comes to the English language, it's because not English, but Dutch is my mother tongue.

Vanna is metalcore, not post-hardcore.

Objective11 (talk) 01:47, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you please stop putting up the mention of a leak in the release section? Perhaps wait until after the actual release date has come, then mention the leak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuken6 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have opened up a new topic for discussion at Talk:Diamond Eyes to continue this conversation. Fezmar9 (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

look. I gave u my proof so stop messing it around.174.61.35.159 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diamond Eyes (song). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:52, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reach a consensus on the Diamond Eyes talk page before making any more changes to the Charts section. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 07:14, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The article Sergio Vega (bassist) has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. NW (Talk) 02:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi! I was looking to your contributions and saw your "magazine scans" subpage... can you help me (here)? Do you know other magazine articles about this band?--Cannibaloki 04:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I am glad someone finally took notice of my offer! In my December 2009 issue there is a review for Existence Is Futile. The full review from the magazine is posted online (here) except for the rating which was (6/10).^[1]

According the Decibel's website, there was a full article on Revocation in their November 2009 issue, an issue that I do not have. However, Decibel has an online version (here). Even though it states, "To read the entire article, purchase this issue from our online store," that likely is the full article. Decibel likes to post the first paragraph of each article online around the time the issue is released, then posts the full article some months later. Hope you find these sources useful! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, these sources will help me a bit. Thanks!--Cannibaloki 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

References

Fezmar9, by reverting the edits of David1287 (talk · contribs), you are just as guilty of edit warring as he is. You are both using the edit summary to dispute the changes. This is not what the edit summary is for. You need to take the discussion to the talk page or to David1287's talk page. I recommend brushing up on the WP:EW policy. Because this is the second warning for this article, I will report any follow-up reverts to the 3RR/edit warring noticeboard to bring in admin intervention. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 00:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I'm no longer watching Diamond Eyes, but I do watch David1287. I'm thinking if he keeps adding unsourced or unverifiable misinformation to that article, you may be able to request protection specifically from him? I'm not sure how that works. Just a thought. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 22:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand what you are getting at and I understand that you would like the page to be neat but I was adding a fact to the article that the tack was the second track on the album & you were, just as inappropriately as I, deleting it without writing in the discussion any reason to it. So clearly we are both at fault. Now getting past that, seeing as the track has been confirmed as Track #2, why wouldn't it have a place on the article? (Also sorry about the note on the article I don't know how to hide a note)96.57.20.60 (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to sit here and fight with you. I'm sorry but I just refuse to waste my time on some guy who has nothing better to do than revert facts and make wikipedia into his own personal obsessive compulsive problem. Obviously, as the following posts show, I'm not the only one who thinks that. 96.57.20.60 (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, that does not give you the right to treat other editors poorly. Calling my posts dumb and encyclopedic only makes you look like a troll especially after I apoligized and tried to make peace in my first response. This is not a reply made to harass you, this is a reply telling you that there are other people on the internet who try to be respectful and treating them like dirt doesn't sit well with anybody. Being informative is fine but try to tone down the hate in your responses. Also, I apoligize for letting my anger get the better of me. Now please, can we talk like adults? No more crude responses from either of us. 96.57.20.60 (talk) 21:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

No hard feelings ^_^

Bro, stars are isomorphic numbers when rating albums, re: Diamond Eyes / Sputnikmusic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.134.184 (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This guy has been reverting good edits, and vandalizing articles for a long time now. He reverted my edit on "The powerless rise" leak, the public should know this album leaked several weeks ago. Ban this vandalizer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.129.168 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I've opened a new USEDfan case, check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/USEDfan. As I see you've tagged his latest sock, I thought you should know.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Good timing! I was following his previous SPIs and just updated the list of suspected socks for this new one you just opened. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of reasons a checkuser will return "possible", and, due to privacy issues, they will rarely tell you what the exact problem is. It can be that they are using computers in different internet cafes in the same city, for example. That would result in a checkuser showing their both accounts' edits mixed in with multiple other valid editors, and not all coming from the same IP address or IP address range. It creates just enough doubt that the checkuser is unwilling to say that it is certainly the same editor, but it tells the admins and clerks on SPI that if we believe it to be the same editor based on behaviour that we should go ahead and block.—Kww(talk) 19:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

please don't advertise what I am about to tell you on the Deepwater Horizon oil spill talk page...

Your edit addition of Korn's BP boycott is my favorite edit to the article so far. I pray that no one reverts it. If they do, I will become vocal about my opposition to their revert.

I am quite possibly the biggest Korn fan alive.

In 1997, I went to a rehab called "Hazelden" in Minnesota, where many rockers go to cure their addictions. Jonathan Davis was there. I was in the same dorm with him. I attended 12 step meetings with him, listened to his story. I played piano with him (I am a pianist/keyboardist) there in the recreation room. I admit, what I just told you is against all principles of 12 step programs. We are supposed to remain anonymous, and respect others anonymity, so forgive me, but dude...

I thought you might appreciate that fact of my life experience. I jammed out with Jonathan Davis.

How cool is that? :D

You have a new friend in Wikipedia-land. Shout at me anytime, bro. Boycott BP!!! :D

MichaelWestbrook (talk) 02:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha!--Cannibaloki 15:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you gave up suggesting that I promote my articles for GA status, and now you are nominating them for DYK instead? lol Fezmar9 (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure of this? I suggested only the Axe to Fall article.--Cannibaloki 03:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I can think of at least one other example. Fezmar9 (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha! "featured list" is not "good article" Anyway, why you do not nominate Jonah Hex: Revenge Gets Ugly EP for good article candidacy? Ha ha!--Cannibaloki 04:08, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am too lazy. Fezmar9 (talk) 07:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How does one go about un-deleting an article? The article The Autumn Offering was recently, and unjustly, speedily deleted. According to the A7 criteria, "The criterion does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source." The band in question meets several criteria at WP:BAND, and the correct procedure should have been an AFD or PROD. Thanks! Fezmar9 (talk) 05:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Fezmar, I'm sorry you are having this issue. The first step I would recommend would be to leave a polite, clearly worded message for the administrator who deleted the article. In this case that would be User:RHaworth. Start by asking him why he thought this was within the speedy deletion criteria or what should have been done differently. I am not an admin and cannot see the content of deleted articles so I cannot advise you on that aspect. If the two of you can come to an agreement on how the article should be improved then this problem will be solved. If the two of you cannot come to such an agreement then the appropriate venue is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Follow the steps there to get further assistance. I hope this helps, if not then please use the help template again or feel free to contact me on my user page. Good luck! Stardust8212 05:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not actual cover art, and should not be there. Remove the file please. (FakeNinja (talk) 15:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC))

Hi. You withdrew the above FLC nomination yesterday, but since then another editor has asked me to reopen it, as he wants to work on the list. Do you mind if I do so? Dabomb87 (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I only withdrew because I probably wouldn't have gotten around to fixing it for a couple of weeks, and as I said in my withdrawing statement, I really thought it was simple pass/fail system. Cannibaloki was the one who encouraged me to promote the article in the first place, so if he wants to make the necessary adjustments to the article then by all means allow him to do so. Fezmar9 (talk) 18:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sawsixcoverart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Sawsixcoverart.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:AskylitdriveADELPHIA.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What if Ben Koller only got 2.2k but United Nations (band), which was mentioned in the DYK, got 5.6k? Fezmar9 (talk) 03:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read my post on the discussion page of Vanna (band). I know you possess the expertise required to edit this article properly. I am politely requesting you to do so. If you do not I will ask someone else to edit this, and if you revert it, I will present this as a dispute to an administrator. Objective44 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is the Vanna (band) article not edited yet? You said you would do so. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective44 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I provided the All Access source which is reliable. At first, it was gonna be Sextape, but then it's You've Seen the Butcher. they chose the single and All Access confirmed it.174.61.35.159 (talk) 11:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'M NOT GUESSING! Whenever I go to All Access and look under future releases, I put the next singles up without getting complaints until now. The band or label doesn't have to announce it. All Access announced it. Stick with it.174.61.35.159 (talk) 20:45, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Fezmar9, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Electronic hardcore, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The page was deleted as an article, not a redirect. Take it to WP:RFD instead. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've been able to speedily delete redirects created just after AFDs in the past... To RFD I go! Fezmar9 (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you haven't actually listed the article at WP:RFD yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's there now. I was just taking forever trying to figure out how I wanted to word it and keep it short. Fezmar9 (talk) 22:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for following though! Happy editing! Fezmar9 (talk) 22:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey sorry about that! I just wanted the article for Underoath's new album to be on here. The first time i made the article, nobody put anything on my talk page saying that they deleted it so I didn't know why it was deleted and I didn't see anything on Underoath's talk page before I remade the page. Sorry about that! --Stevedietrich (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I actually haven't been using my watchlist, thanks for the advice! --Stevedietrich (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5