Re: Your question about Darkthrone's current views on Satanism

During the erly days (about 1991–1994) Darkthrone hardly did eny interviews. The interviews they did do at the time seem to be tung-in-cheek and I find it very hard to take everything they say seriously (see this 1994 interview for example, which cracks me up). I think a lot of BM interviews from that time wer tung-in-cheek—to be taken with a pinch of salt—yet meny folk take them 100% seriously. Fenriz indeed identified himself as a Satanist at this time, but he had his own ideology and has never spoken about it much.

In a 1999 interview for Legion magazine, when askt "Are you still a Satanist?" Fenriz replied: "You always have this thing with you. But it might not be so strong now. It depends on if it is the biggest thing in your life". I'm not sure if Nocturno was ever a Satanist but I know he doesn't call himself one now. He sayd in a 1998 interview for Scream magazine #44: "And Satanism, well, it was something one would play around with, but you do get more rational as time goes by". In a 2001 interview for the Friends of Devils zine #12 he sayd: "For us, black metal is neither political or religious. It's just a way to express the really dark side of Mankind". In a 2002 interview for The Metal Observer : "For me Black Metal isn't about religion. It isn't about Satan or anything like that ... You can call us a fighter against religion. We are really anti-religious people". I'm fairly sure Fenriz doesn't call himself a Satanist today either. ~Asarlaí 04:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The interview you linked to does indeed not seem to be 100% serious. I am especially interested in interviews done after 2000, which you mentioned while referring to Nocturno Culto. I second your thought about Fenriz, I think he is too much of a Heavy Metal guy to care about Satanism now (still would like to see him being asked about that in a more recent interview, done after, say, 2006, therefore after the change towards more Punk and Heavy Metal influences). And I actually can’t recall Nocturno Culto ever actively promoting Satanism in early interviews nor distancing himself, so I can agree here as well. --217/83 19:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I remember I also asked about Ihsahn’s current views on Satanism; I just read that in the past Ihsahn “pulled the Satanist card out of convenience, if it suited the situation. […] I don’t think Satanism is necessarily a very positive thing to get into, because you’re confronted with some pretty extreme stuff and it can go either way. […] The way we saw things was screwed up […].” I found that here, thanks to ZeFredz who added the interview to the Emperor article. --217/83 12:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Satanism, as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:04, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I considered these little corrections and additional sources to be a minor edit, but thank you for telling me it is seen otherwise here. --217/83 12:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, generally addition (or removal) of any content, uncontroversial or not, shouldn't be marked as minor. Your edit was actually relatively substantial. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are responsible for adding a reference when you add a fact or item to an article. If someone removes it as unreferenced, then you add the reference when you put it back. Otherwise, it will just be removed again until you do so correctly. Nobody else has to do it for you. The burden is on the editor wishing to add a fact or item to the article. So please learn how to cite your sources. Otherwise, you are just making unnecessary work for other editors, since you are the one with the knowledge of the subject or fact. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have to “learn how to cite”, just look at my other edits. I left a comment, referring to Root’s site and loads of online reviews; I consider this to be enough for a release, I would have added a footnote otherwise. --217/83 17:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When somebody requests citation, it means they want a footnote, not an edit summary. This is an article about a living person. Everything should be cited. Yworo (talk) 21:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one article with a footnote for every sound recording. --217/83 22:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff exists is never a good argument. I'm not saying every recording needs citation, but guest appearances should be verifiable. Regular appearances with the subject's own band obviously don't need to be cited, the guest appearances should be. Yworo (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you write that “[e]verything should be cited”, the conclusion would be to have a footnote behind every book, album, et cetera; that has nothing to do with invalid comparisons. And the guest appearance (many of these aren’t cited either, by the way) I added is easily verifiable through the Root homepage. --217/83 22:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Mayhem (band), have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you to seek consensus for certain edits. Thank you. Malconfort (talk) 23:39, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to tell me about the neutral point of view. I know both about this rule, about the need for sources and what Black Metal is about (see my edits there), but maybe I should have sourced that specific change. And what do you mean by “some […] edits”? Which ones besides Mayhem (where I obviously disagree)? --217/83 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adam Darski. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike DingirXul, I have tried to discuss the edits, warned them several times etc. Your comment on the article’s talk page makes me doubt you understand what the conflict is about. --217/83 19:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sources are in polish, it's not my problem that you don't now this language, Nasz Dziennik and Rzeczpospolita are well known newspapers in poland DingirXul (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for Beherit and other terms backing up the information you restored, so it seems they don’t back up the content. Prove me wrong. --217/83 21:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Trzmiel, Antoni; Tycner, Adam. "Cztery oblicza Nergala (Wymagana rejestracja/Registration Required for Full Access)" (in Polish). www.rp.pl. Retrieved 26 December 2011. DingirXul (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt pages requiring registration are allowed here, and your reply doesn’t prove me wrong. And why do you react now and ignored both me and the administrator before? Doesn’t make your post credible. --217/83 21:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

when someone use a book, you also deny that kind of soursce just because you don't have it ? DingirXul (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I doubt this to be really the same thing. Prove me wrong by citing some guideline allowing you to use pages requiring registration. And it doesn’t really surprise me that you didn’t react to my question. --217/83 21:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you should not be surprised, i thought i am dealing with reasonable people and description in ref should be enough, as i said when someone use a book, you also deny that kind of soursce just because you don't have it ?, you want proof, buy article DingirXul (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to doubt a footnote which doesn’t seem to back up the content? Yes. Is it reasonable to undo edits that express this doubt, with obvious summary comments, and just react with “stop removing sources”? No, it isn’t. If those really back up the content when registered, add a fucking quote to the footnote! And think twice before restoring them, since they shouldn’t be added if they don’t back up the pseudonym I removed, the other pseudonym being inspired by the Beherit vocalist (there was also a great band called Holocausto), etc., and don’t tell me about being reasonable. --217/83 22:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

• Pages requiring registration are usually not acceptable as references.
• References in languages other than English are always acceptable (if they're still considered "reliable", like popular newspapers), unless they can be replaced by existent English-language sources.

— Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is quite exactly what I thought. But I wasn’t denying non-English references anyway, like DingirXul seems to believe. --217/83 21:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong, I was thinking of WP:ELREG. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 21:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just walking by and giving the link. WP:PAYWALL Herr Kriss (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, please take it here: Talk:Adam_Darski#Edit_warring. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 22:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changing or removing genres is not a "minor edit". — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 03:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crap, same as with the Satanism edit, although this one was about an even smaller part of the article. Sorry for that. --217/83 06:02, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Mayhem (band), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:04, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you even taken a look at my edit? I improved several footnotes (among them, an imprecise magazine reference), I added a reference for the controversy surrounding the band after 1995, I corrected the genre information (it is obvious to anyone knowing about Black Metal and Mayhem that Mayhem is no Black Metal band anymore), and you actually pretend my edit “did not appear to be constructive“? --217/83 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is far from obvious, and entirely your POV. You have made no attempt to discuss your changes to the genre field on the article talk page, despite your edits being reverted by multiple editors. You have made no attempt to provide any sources to substantiate your claims; a user review from Sputnik (which obviously fails WP:RS in an edit summary(!) is nowhere near enough to overturn consensus. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again. Obvious to people who take a look at the edit, see the obvious corrections (like the footnotes) or who have knowledge about content, ideology etc. which this subculture is about. And this is not entirely my point of view, otherwise I wouldn’t have edited the article. But I will bring the topic to the talk page. --217/83 13:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A swift Google reveals plenty of sources describing post-1995 Mayhem as "black metal". A whole stack of Terrorizer tends to agree. And I'm talking about sources that pass WP:RS, not webzines. The "footnote" you added about the band's "trueness" being questioned is an obvious piece of POV-pushing that has no place on WP. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the footnote I added is a master thesis on Folk Metal (but not only about that subgenre), which reflects the questioning as an external view but doesn’t express the author’s own one. --217/83 14:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two points. Firstly, a master's thesis fails WP:RS, quite obviously, unless it's been published by a independent third-party. Secondly, you still have failed to justify the content's inclusion - it remains POV-pushing. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had thought a thesis (as a work thought to have a scientific background) was considered to be reliable here (aren’t the universities considered to be the publishers, and supposed to be independent, as scientific institutions?). And the second part should be obvious, since it is known that post-1994 Mayhem is a controversial topic in the scene. --217/83 14:19, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A master's thesis would certainly not be reliable. The University is a self-published source. If the material were published elsewhere by a an independent, third-party source, preferably in print, then it would pass WP:RS. Not quite sure where you get the idea that a thesis on folk metal would have a scientific background though! What a bizarre claim. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, having checked WP:RS, the party line is: "Masters dissertations and theses are only considered reliable if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence", which rules out almost all of them, as it's impossible to demonstrate scholarly oversight. I have my master's thesis in the other room (genetics rather than folk metal, admittedly) but I'd never think of citing it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know what people learn at the universities in your country (this is not meant to be xenophobic), but in Germany from where I am currently arguing with you, they learn scientific research according to which theses and other works are to be written (or at least that’s how it is supposed to be). That given, is it that hard to get what thoughts lay behind my use of that reference? --217/83 14:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Start indent again) People in my country, and indeed all others, can study science subjects or arts subjects (that is obviously an over-simplification, but basically true). A study of a music genre is clearly far from anything "scientific" in any real sense; I don't regard "sociology" as a science! I may be a pedant, but then I am a science teacher ;-) What is the falsifiable hypothesis etc. as Popper would say. As to your use of the source, yes, I know why you included it - it's a source that happens, at least in the context you used it in, to support your own personal POV. Its pseudo-academic nature may have made it look appealing, but essentially what you need is a number of sources discussing this controversy in order to establish some kind of notability. What is said on the Internet messageboards by more-underground-than-thou kvltists does not amount to a mention on WP. You need some detailed discussion in the music press, not obscure theses. Otherwise including statements such as the one you added is a WP:NPOV violation. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a pedant if you want, I have no problems with that; nor with your views on sociology, considering some of those people’s work. I hope you have understood why I considered undoing my complete edit to be offending, which may explain my reaction (as should the fact that I expect people listening to Black Metal to know post-1994 Mayhem is a controversial topic, which is still not sufficiently shown by the article). I have planned to look for additional references for the controversy, and, as stated above, to bring this to the Mayhem talk page. And I hope you have noticed I am a constructive part of this project (see the comments on my Satanism edit, the Black Metal talk page or my other contributions). --217/83 15:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologise for any offense taken! I look forward to working with you to improve the projecct. Have a happy New Year! Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I needed to calm down a bit before replying again. I don’t know what kind of users you usually have to deal with, but I often have obnoxious arguments with users who obviously don’t even read what you write before reacting (you aren’t expected to know, but more or less simultaneously to our argument (which is maybe not that obvious due to different time zones), Klaus Frisch and I had to deal with insults, political assumptions, vandalism etc. on the German Occultism article, its talk page and both his and my talk page). As post-1994 Mayhem being a controversial topic, Satanism being Black Metal’s ideology and post-1994 Mayhem deviating from Black Metal (and I hopefully don’t have to tell you how often people wrongly call something “Black Metal” only for commercial reasons; therefore, commercial media’s reliability is often to be doubted, a point brought up several times on the German project’s talk pages, when reliability was discussed) should be general knowledge among people listening to Black Metal, and I had also corrected the Ablaze and Chimera footnotes, you might understand my reaction to your initial posts and those that followed (and if my point was to just force my point of view onto post-1994 Mayhem articles, all of them would read something like “all of this was crap”, which strongly differs from “the band’s continuation without important former members and the musical and ideological changes raised issues of ‘trueness’ and authenticity within the black metal scene”). If you watch the Black Metal and Euronymous articles and talk pages, you might also have noticed my contributions there (during the last five weeks), and maybe also my conflict with DingirXul because of the Adam “Nergal” Darski article (unlike DingirXul, I at least tried to communicate and give reasons for my edits).

By the way, I looked for a few comments on post-1994 Mayhem that I doubt to be rejected:

• “Anyway, the first real chapter of Northern Black Metal is over and let's hope there will be no reforming of MAYHEM, that would not be right...........” De Mysteriis Dom Euronymous. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries. Brooklyn, NY: Bazillion Points Books 2011, p. 282.
• “Well, I must say that I was one of those persons who was rather sceptic when it was known that t [sic!] MAYHEM should go on even without Dead or Euronymous. Finally I can leave that period of time behind me.” Mayhem. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, p. 477.
• “Because there was a lot of people that said we should break up when Euronymous was killed, and it was also a lot of people who meant that we should break up when Dead killed himself.” Mayhem. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, p. 480. This one is by Necrobutcher, the other ones by Metalion himself, who knew Euronymous and Necrobutcher since 1985 and considered Euronymous to have been his best friend (see Euronymous article if you want references for that information).
• “We have to stop here and now and hopefully there will be a part II of this interview somewhere in the next issue. Perhaps we will then talk about how such an anti Christian band as MAYHEM defend the fact that their drummer Hellhammer had a Christian wedding? And how that can ruin the credibility of the band? Who knows? You might find that out in the next SLAYER, but we might speak about other subjects as well.” Mayhem. In: Jon Kristiansen: Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, p. 481.

I haven’t looked for additional opinions in articles not about Mayhem in that book yet, but will do so (and haven’t taken any quotes from underground fanzines which I know to be reliable). I still have one question though: if I had added these and the thesis footnote in one and the same edit, do you suppose the latter would still have been removed anyway or have been accepted as one of several references for the post-1994 controversy (maybe due to some assume good faith policy and my other references)? --217/83 06:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little note re your edit summary: I think it was me who changed the section titles here, not the other one. Hope it's okay. :3 — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 19:52, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct. Thank you. It wouldn’t really have been a problem if the content (which you are obviously not responsible for) hadn’t been that controversial, but it doesn’t matter to me anymore, now that I split the December 2011 sections and adapted the headlines. I apologise to Blackmetalbaz for this assumption, which they may accept or not (maybe I thought it was them because it more or less coincided with one of their edits here, and because the incorrect headline fit the incorrect reactions to several posts of mine here and on the Mayhem talk page). --217/83 19:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please do not change genres in articles to suit your point of view without some sort of discussion. A good place to start would be Talk:Dissection (band). Looking at that article, neither genre shown in the infobox is sourced or even mentioned in the article. Bring some reliable sources supporting either or both genres (not "listen to this album or that album"), and we can get the article improved. Until then, we'll leave it as is. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with my point of view, and it seems you don’t know about the music if you assume such bullshit (which doesn’t actually motivate me to work with you). I know this project needs footnotes, but I consider the newer recordings’ genre to be general knowledge. --217/83 08:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether I know about the music or not is irrelevant. And whether you consider the genre to be "general knowledge" is also irrelevant. On Wikipedia we require such information to be sourced. I'm glad you found some sources supporting these genres; in the future, please make sure your genre-based edits are based on reliable sources instead of your opinion. I have corrected the wording in the lead to avoid unnecessary slashes and WP:EGG links. I also removed some duplicate references (whether an author mentions something one time or three times in the same book irrelevant, suffice it to say the book mentions it).

Also, please read WP:CIVIL, it is one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars. There's no need to get angry over some minor editing conflicts. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t tell me about civility after dismissing my edits as “point of view” and me as a “genre warrior”, and then adding such bullshit as “based on […] your opinion”; if you knew about the music, you could just have left my edit and told me to add references. I may have made a mistake when I thought this is general knowledge, but I still consider undoing my edit to be exaggerated, and there is no need to write such bullshit as “point of view”, “genre warrior” and “based on […] your opinion” (after those assumptions, I don’t consider these “minor editing conflicts“; besides, according to Jeraphine Gryphon, “[c]hanging or removing genres is not a ‘minor edit’”, see above) and then add “[t]here's no need to get angry”. --217/83 07:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The user was talking about "minor conflicts" in the general sense, earlier above I was referring to "minor edits" in the technical sense that it's used on Wikipedia.

Genres need sources on here, just listening to an album (and forming an opinion about the genre) is not enough. It's true that directly calling someone a "genre warrior" is (can be) rude, though, if it helps you understand where he's coming from, there's quite a widespread issue with so-called genre warriors (WP:GWAR) who edit genres on bands and albums according to their own opinion, while those opinions can be wrong. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw/see the difference, I cited you mainly because of the term minor. I admitted I may have made a mistake when I thought Dissection’s genres were general knowledge, but that doesn’t justify calling me a “genre warrior” and depicting my edit as “point of view”, “genre warrior” and “based on […] your opinion”. I know there is “quite a widespread issue with so-called genre warriors” here, I remember undoing one of those edits not so long ago, and I also know that from the German project (though I never read any “genre warrior” assumption there, but am part of other conflicts over there). Still, it is unacceptable that certain users start the discussion by calling me a genre warrior, and then pretend their contributions were civil whereas mine weren’t (see Mayhem section above and Talk:Mayhem (band)#On post-1994 Mayhem not playing Black Metal). As stated above, this doesn’t actually motivate me to work with them. --217/83 13:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for calling you a "genre warrior" and claiming you were editing based only on your opinion. However, try to see it from my point of view: an editor repeatedly edits genres without providing any sources, even after requests for sources and discussion. This is the way most "genre warriors" operate, and your edits appeared to be in line with that (without sources, it appears that you're editing based on your opinion, and comments such as "And give the latter a listen." [1] also seem to support that you're editing based on your opinion). Now that you're aware that sourcing genres is important, I'm sure this situation won't occur again, from either of us. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first genre edit was done by an IP adress that isn’t mine, not by me (my IP range is 217.83 etc., hence my user name; I worked on the German project for several months before registering and also editing over here, except very few edits, and people over there knew me as the 217.83 IP adress). You undid that (which is okay, “Blackened Death Metal” is a pretty stupid term anyway), I wanted to correct the genres, which you undid (with the comment: “no discussion”, nothing like “please provide references for the genres, as even those in the box should have been referenced”), and I thought my following edit summary would be enough, since the genres had already been put into the box and the Reinkaos article, Reinkaos being the Melodic Death Metal album as opposed to the early releases’ style. Then came the edit summary calling me a “genre warrior” and this section on my talk page, although the problem could have been solved earlier. I won’t deny the problems associated with my edits, and doubt this story will repeat itself, but next time you see some edits like that, maybe add some template to the unreferenced genres. --217/83 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so it looks like that person also edited the Nargaroth page with the "life metal" With that explanation of yours, life metal appears to be an "opposite" of death metal. So, since reliable sources have not recognized it, to my knowledge, as an official music genre, it doesn't need to be on Wikipedia. But yeah, thanks for writing on my talk page and giving me that information. Have a nice day. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 05:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. --217/83 05:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about German attribution. I have added the required summaries to The Beauty of Gemina, Neue Deutsche Todeskunst, and Zillo, which I also translated.  The Steve  01:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. And be careful, some users might doubt the notability and suggest these for deletion (e. g. the Dark Rock article has only very few references, and most people may never have heard of the Dark Rock genre and mislabel the bands as Gothic Rock or Gothic Metal). --217/83 01:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am aware. However, I think quotes from Zillo and Orkus, two very significant music magazines in Germany, should suffice for most people. Also, I have no problem labeling bands with multiple genres, as they often use elements from all of them.  The Steve  07:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just letting you know that I have added a notability tag to this article. I have no wish to get into further snarking with you, as I would genuinely like us to be able to work together constructively for the benefit of the project. My concern regarding this article is as follows: do we have any sources discussing this subgenre in any kind of detail? Not attributions to specific bands... that'snot enough to establish notability, particularly if the attributions are from the bands themselves. We'd need an article about the subgenre itself. Just a further clarification (following one of your edit summaries to the Nokturnal Mortum article), if I say I'm removing references to bands on articles because they are not notable, that doesn't mean that notability could not be established, just that it currently hasn't. This is why we have a long standing consensus to remove redlinked bands from articles. I'd like to say again that I don't want to get into a protracted argument with you about this, and I think you do much good work for Wikipedia. Do you think we could actually work towards having a positive working relationship? Baz (this particular keyboard has no tildes to sign with!).

Okay, Dark Rock first. This is legit for the reason stated above, that most people may never have heard of the Dark Rock genre. The problem is that the music industry and stupid or ignorant journalists (yes, these again) mislabel the bands as Gothic Rock or Gothic Metal although they lack Post-Punk and Psychedelic Rock elements of Gothic Rock and aren’t Metal either. But I doubt there are that many good references for the genre. But I’m no expert and don’t know the literature about Goth and related music. I asked on the talk page though (see de:Diskussion:Dark Rock#Belege).

I have no specific problem with the consensus you refer to, at least not in general (didn’t know about it though); but you might have seen what “not notable” implies. So this wording should better be avoided. Same for “genre warrior” etc. I accept your statement that you “don't want to get into a protracted argument […] about this”, and that you think I “do much good work for Wikipedia”; I rather got the impression of being constantly under attack not only for article edits but also for talk page comments that did not lead to any edits in that way. Etc., you know my summary on the Unblack Metal talk page so I don’t have to repeat all of this. I won’t generally reject working towards having a positive working relationship, but you may understand I am a bit sceptical. And I suppose you know I would react to further offence the same way as in the past. --217/83 18:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

haha this is really funny. I tried this search. Dark Rock is so far along in German mags that they're subdividing it into things like melodic dark rock and Progressive dark rock, but here they haven't even heard of it, or consider it "music journalist-speak" for depressing rock music. Anyway, don't worry too much about it. If you find a good source discussing the origins of Dark Rock, just add it to my page(user:thesteve/DarkRock), and we can try again in a couple of years. :)  The Steve  04:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t coun on me, I listen to Dark Rock rarely and almost never read any related reviews etc. --217/83 07:47, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could add your voice to the deletion discussion. Thanks  The Steve  01:44, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, thanks for all your help. Looks like Dark rock is here to stay :) Cheers,  The Steve  08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In good faith I've spent the last 15 or so minutes looking for any confirmation of the validity of your link and found nothing. Furthermore, the verbiage in your statement sounds an awful lot like a fake statement purported to be from the band shortly after they made the initial comments which apologized for them. They then released a genuine second statement insisting they had not apologized, and reiterated their negative feelings regarding Abbot and Burton. This second statement is the link I've used as a reference. On top of that, the wording you currently have is highly misleading and blends direct quotes with your own POV.

If you can find a verifiable source for this interview, I'm more than happy to have the band's apology included, but forgive me for finding it's existences to be dubious. --Williamsburgland (talk) 12:37, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What link? I haven’t quoted from some page on the internet but from Slayer, which is a notable printed fanzine (this last issue is distributed through Nuclear War Now! Productions, also available through other distributors, and unlimited), and the interview was re-issued in the book Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, so it can be verified. Metalion knows the band personally and is, unlike Blabbermouth, reliable in the true sense of the word (in the sense of trustworthy, not what this project considers to be “reliable”). And what the heck is “highly misleading” about quoting the band’s statement following the controversy? I admit I like Nifelheim, but don’t think of accusing me of “POV-pushing” or such bullshit, my edit is about including the band’s reaction to the Blabbermouth posting, which is legitimate (especially if you know how much bullshit has been spread through this site, this is only one example out of many). I will forgive you “for finding it's existences to be dubious” only if you haven’t even noticed Nifelheim’s split with Sadistik Exekution titled Tribute to Slayer Magazine; this fanzine is a very important source for extreme Metal. There isn’t anything more reliable than the Slayer fanzine (its importance and good reputation is no secret to anyone knowing about Black Metal’s history, also very important for extreme Metal in general) and its partial re-prints SLAYER. N° 1 à 5 and Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries (well, the French translations in SLAYER. N° 1 à 5 are awful, see de:Slayer (Fanzine)). --217/83 17:22, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly aren't going to take any POV other than your own here... apparently an established, well known, reliable and notable website, owned by one of the biggest metal labels on Earth, is unreliable, but an almost completely unknown (do they even have a website? They don't have a wiki article) 'fanzine' is the be all end all. You're now in violation of the 3 revert rule... one more and I'll seek admin intervention... I can see you've had that problem several times in the past, so I'm not expecting much from you. --Williamsburgland (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that site spread bullshit more than once, and I won’t accept any accusations of “POV-pushing” or such bullshit (see other sections above). I have used Slayer and the book as a reference for other articles, and these edits have obviously been accepted since they were obvious improvements (see Talk:Black metal, Talk:King ov Hell and the sections above). Calling Slayer “an almost completely unknown […] ‘fanzine’” is a sign of ignorance. Yes, there is an old Slayer site which hasn’t been updated, and Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries was published by Bazillion Points, by the way. You will also see how relevant Metalion and the Slayer fanzine are by reading Lords of Chaos (although the book isn’t really trustworthy either) or Swedish Death Metal, which both refer to them. And yes, I have “had that problem several times in the past”, but this always has two sides. And I’m not expecting much from you either. --217/83 18:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The more I see from you the clearer it is you have no interest in conforming to Wikipedia guidelines; that it's 'bullshit' is your opinion, as is the notability of likely self published fanzine that (that website was last updated in 2002... leading edge stuff). Either post a link to the interview, or let it go. The fact that other edits you made stood despite using it doesn't attest to it's reliability as a source, it just means no one has investigated. --Williamsburgland (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t give a crap about what seems “clear” to you. I have no interest in conforming to users who can’t discuss without constantly accusing me of “POV-pushing” or such bullshit (which doesn’t actually motivate me to work with you and makes your first message’s “[i]n good faith” seem like a bad joke). It seems as though you didn’t even read my comments (I did mention that the Slayer site is old and hasn’t been updated, linked to the German article about the Slayer fanzine, which would have been nominated for deletion a long time ago if it was irrelevant, I mentioned books published by Feral House and Bazillion Points, both notable; I own Lords of Chaos and know parts of Swedish Death Metal are available through Google Books), and “Either post a link to the interview, or let it go.” seems to imply you don’t accept printed material (as mentioned above, the interview was re-issued in Metalion: The Slayer Mag Diaries, which was released by Bazillion Points, “a book publishing company owned and operated by author Ian Christe”), which is ridiculous, as is your last sentence “The fact that other edits you made stood despite using it doesn't attest to it's reliability as a source, it just means no one has investigated.”; do you really expect me to reply to that? Besides, Metalion had a notable label called Head Not Found, which isn’t run by him anymore but is still active. --217/83 22:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn. Propose a constructive way to improve the section. I'd do it myself but I've no idea what happened or didn't happen and also don't have access to that source. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 01:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Nifelheim shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
This is a consistent problem for you. Admin intervention is my next move

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Williamsburgland (talk • contribs) 17:59, 23 April 2012‎

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring on Nifelheim. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, we're never going to agree on the entire section, but rather than let this devolve back into another argument, perhaps we can agree on a compromise. My proposal is that the first paragraph, which deals with the initial comments made in Sweden Rock Magazine and Blabbermouth with stay as is (I've included them below for your reference), though I do plan to add a ref from the above mentioned magazine when I find one (I need to go through the articles and translate them to ensure I find the right one); you agree not to add anything else to that paragraph.

The second paragraph, which deals with the statements made in Slayer Magazine will be off limits to me. You will edit it and phrase it as you like and I will not touch it. This way both statements are in the article, properly cited and the reader can logically come to their own conclusion.

Here is the paragraph I am proposing stays the same:

The band was involved in controversy within the heavy metal music community in December 2008, when members of the band made inflammatory remarks in Sweden Rock Magazine about deceased Metallica bassist Cliff Burton as well as Dimebag Darrell; stating "I laughed and pissed on a photo of him" and "Too bad Phil Anselmo didn't die too; that was probably the only time I wished Pantera had actually played", about Burton and Abbott respectively. In a statement released to Blabbermouth.net, the band later verified that they had made, and approved the statements before the issue was published.[4]

Let me know what you think, or if you agree simply do what you like with the "Slayer" paragraph. --Williamsburgland (talk) 13:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe I will accept this hypocritical “compromise”, “proposal” or whatever word you want to use for that? Your version implies that Blabbermouth’s statements were true and those from Slayer weren’t, which I doubt, whereas mine (“according to Blabbermouth”) lets the reader decide what they want to believe; yours doesn’t. This isn’t neutral but biased. --217/83 14:59, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it reflects what Sweden Rock Magazine, Blabbermouth and Slayer Zine reported without Op/Ed or OR. Since the interview in Slayer Zine seems to contradict what the other two sources reported, it's then up to the reader to come to their own conclusion. It's difficult to understand what you really want here because every one of your responses have been laced with personal attacks and swears, but if I'm to understand, you want to treat Sweden Rock and Blabbermouth (or just blabbermouth, I'm not sure) as unreliable sources, which they aren't. Even if the band says "We didn't say that", it's not enough to discount the other two sources. You could, on the other hand, put in the second paragraph something to the effect of "The band denied/contested these statements saying..." or something to that effect.

I don't have any desire to continue being treated like this by you, and I'm not going to allow myself to be dragged into a cussing war again. I think what I've proposed is fair, and it reflects what Jeraphine proposed if I understand correctly. I don't have time right now, but I do plan to seek outside assistance and report any further violations of WP: Civility. I'm making an effort to resolve this amicably, I'd appreciate it if you would too.--Williamsburgland (talk) 16:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the Sweden Rock article? I haven’t, and due to my experience with Blabbermouth (one example for this was Nödtveidt’s death, the wrong information came from Blabbermouth and not from the original Expressen article) I don’t trust this site’s quotes (as stated above, I use the term reliable in its correct meaning and not according to this project’s guidelines when stating I don’t trust Blabbermouth). And I don't have any desire to continue being treated like this by you either; if every one of my responses “have been laced with personal attacks and swears”, what about yours? Your accusations of being a “POV-pushing” “asshole” are comments on editors, my reply stating that these accusations are bullshit is a comment on content, not on you; see Jeraphine’s comment on your talk page. After my experience with you, I have no reason to believe you are actually “making an effort to resolve this amicably”, nor to consider your plans to “report any further violations of WP: Civility” to be but a joke. --217/83 16:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users are allowed to delete stuff from their own talk pages (as long as they aren't editing others' posts by selectively deleting words or something), you shouldn't revert their deletes. I suggest you fix this before they come online. (I noticed you added a new message too so I wasn't going to revert it myself.) — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 15:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. I wouldn't have restored it if I hadn’t added comments. Thank you. --217/83 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, H. 217.83. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I know you are semi-taking a break, your input on the discussion on the nifelheim page regarding a potential compromise would be welcome. Given you and Williamsburgland appear to have been at loggerheads over this, try a fresh start and go from there. You both seem to have calmed down and I dont doubt you are able to discuss it rationally on the nifelheim talk page. I would avoid each others talk pages for now and stick only to the content issues. Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do doubt we are able to discuss it rationally and I don’t mean just Williamsburgland. --217/83 17:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. If you wish to edit constructively, please do so, but please do not attempt to conceal disruptive edits as you did here. The outcome of that old edit war was decided long ago; please leave it as is or face another editing restriction. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 18:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was taking a break while “[t]he outcome of that old edit war was decided”, maybe I will bring that up on the talk page. Still no need to undo the whole edit including the parts that don’t really have to do with the edit war (the section on the musical style; the comparisons with other bands weren’t referenced before my edit). --217/83 19:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your decision to take a break is your own; Wikipedia is under no liability to wait for you. Furthermore, a brief review of that talk page and the section above seems to indicate you merely "took your ball and went home" once it was clear you would not get your way. It even seems the other editor attempted to put forth a olive branch, which you seemed to ignore or disregard. I intend to make several improvements to the article over the next day or three - if you have edits you'd like to add outside the scope of your disagreement please do so. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 00:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t pretend this project has to wait for me. And I consider the other editor’s olive branch to be hypocritical after all that came from their side (pretending I was “POV-pushing”, making up that statement, denying Slayer’s notability, calling me a “worthless moron” and an “asshole”); my point is that their version implies the statements from the Blabbermouth site were true (which I doubt for reasons stated on the Nifelheim talk page) etc., but I already explained that here, on the Nifelheim talk page etc. Seriously, your impression of my part is terribly wrong (I wasn’t civil either but you still have to provoke me to act that way). As stated above, maybe I will bring that up on the talk page, but probably not today. --217/83 11:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your reply on the edit war talk page; you considered my reply to be “less than friendly”; okay, but you have to consider that your interpretation of my conflict with Williamsburgland included false statements (you may understand I don’t believe in the olive branch after all I had to take from Williamsburglands), though at least you wrote “it seems” etc. which somehow makes a difference. And you should learn not to undo constructive edits but correct the parts you consider to be wrong; you should understand this is extremely annoying for constructive editors, especially after conflicts like the one with Williamsburgland (though this is not your fault). I apologise if I pissed you off with the sock puppet comment; by “third user involved, Swankytank (unless this is a sock puppet of Thefirewillrise or vice versa; both started here almost at the same time and focussed on the Nifelheim article, though that may be coincidence)” I didn’t really want to come up with false accusations, I just made a remark on the fact that you both came around the same time and wrote that it might be coincidence as well.

Asking Baz to have a look at the conflict is acceptable, by the way; I just asked one user (with whom I have had disgusting conflicts for several months; of course we still disagree on some fundamental things but managed to somehow cope, which would have been impossible with Williamsburgland); if I had asked a lot of users who have problems with you and obviously ignored those you get along with, this would be called canvassing, and that is not acceptable; Williamsburgland did that during our conflict. --217/83 14:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you seem to be inferring that you're the only editor constructively contributing to this article. You reverted constructive changes I made as well and ignored my pleas to work it out. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not consider myself to be “the only editor constructively contributing to this article”. I did not simply undo your edits but included parts of them: I saw and accepted your compromise for the introduction (the sentence about Nifelheim’s “old school style”), so I did not remove that sentence with my last edit but restored several sections, not an old version (and I explained my edits in my summaries and stated I was not simply undoing yours several times). --217/83 21:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried fixing this but am not experienced enough. Please simply go in and fix the tag or whatever it is rather that reverting wholesale. The version you keep reverting to has grammatical errors and is contrary to the band's statements in the cited interview. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 14:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Compare my version with yours and you will see what I mean (the Mourning the Ancient webzine reference, of course). Your claim I was “reverting wholesale” confirms my impression that neither you nor Swankytank took a look at my edits before undoing them; my last version, for example, included your introduction sentence. You two are the ones “reverting wholesale” including my correction of your errors (like the broken reference). Take a closer look at my edit while I am blocked, and learn from it; and please restore my improvements, you can still remove possible mistakes (I may also have misread something while editing, you know this can happen). You should also read the biography and interview again since they imply you could see John as a permanent member, but they never said that about Jon Nödtveidt. --217/83 14:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I consider “reverting wholesale” without taking a look at the edit (despite my summaries) to be unacceptable, but your other edits seem to imply you are a constructive editor. I think we can work together in the future, if you work on that and are open for future cooperation (I’ll accept if you don’t). --217/83 15:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude seems to be that there is you and there is everyone else - I agree that name calling is unjustified, but you seem to be holding me responsible for the behavior of other users. You consider your edits improvements, refuse to consider other people's perspectives on the matter and demand that I (and, I think, other users) fix your errors and revert anyone that doesn't comply. Frankly, you've made it difficult for me to work with you. That said, I'll look at the section on members and try to come up with a compromise. If you indeed want to work together please try doing the same in the future before simply reverting my or anyone else's edits. It's quite frustrating. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are not responsible for the behaviour of other users (I apologise if you really got that impression); I wrote about the past conflicts to explain the situation. I am convinced that you are a constructive editor, see above. But if someone makes a mistake while improving an article (e. g. my section for the musical style is an improvement, while the introduction sentence had no references for the style similar to the bands mentioned), that is no reason to undo the whole edit. If you complain about “simply reverting my or anyone else’s edits”, I understand you, but you are wrong; I saw and accepted your compromise for the introduction (the sentence about Nifelheim’s “old school style”), so I did not remove that sentence with my last edit but restored several sections, not an old version (and I explained my edits in my summaries and stated I was not simply undoing yours several times). You may now understand how frustrating it is for me. --217/83 21:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like yet another editor has joined the fray; their edits are visible back to 2007 or so. I've reverted one of their edits which removed the biography section but other than that I don't have time to thoroughly compare each version. I will be studying and at Uni through tomorrow and will have little time for this, but if you tell me what you think perhaps I could take a stab later on. --Thefirewillrise (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you really have to learn to look at an edit before undoing it completely. I fixed your bare URL with my last edit; I don’t like to do such small edits without contributing more, but I don’t want to see the same reactions to my edits as during this edit war. As we disagreed on the question whether John Zweetsloot and Jon Nödtveidt were or were not members and it seemed to me that you didn’t look at the references again, I will provide quotes from both of them. According to the interview, the band had “found two guitarists” (one of them being Zweetsloot) and therefore “a full line-up to play live if we want”, but the interviewer asked why the band did not “have John as a permanent member”; Hellbutcher replied: “You can say he is a permanent member because he has always rehearsed with us but he is not writing songs. He is only playing in the band. That is why we don't call him a 'real' member, but if he did some tracks it would be different.” Therefore it is unclear whether to consider him a real member or not. And “John Zweetsloot and Jon Nodtveidt from DISSECTION joined in to play guitar on the album […]. In 1997 they recorded their second album - […] once again with help by John & Jon.” does not mean “they became members” but “they played guitars on the first album and also helped out on the second one”. I referred to the references I just quoted when I edited these paragraphs, as you can see if you take a look at the older versions (I understand you also have other things to do, so I do not ask you again to look at each of my versions although you can select versions to compare them, as you probably have already noticed). --217/83 21:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Nifelheim. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being blocked is one thing, but what about the two other users involved? Both of them reverted at least thrice if I remember correctly. It also seems as though none of you noticed I didn’t just restore one version (that is what I consider a revert, so I might really have misunderstood the rule), which is obvious if you compare my edits; e. g. the last one did not undo Thefirewillrise’s compromise for the article's introduction. As I can’t reply on the edit war page, could you or Thefirewillrise please leave a message linking to my talk page? See above for my reply and apology referring to the sock puppet comment which wasn’t meant that way. --217/83 14:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your post on the edit war page. I wonder why you’re “uncomfortable doing that”; I consider it to be my right to reply since this is about me, which I can’t (at least not there) due to my block. --217/83 15:13, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know about the concept of root races? For the moment it has been merged, but if reliable sources are found then perhaps its own article could be revived, it would need an expert on the topic, not someone just copying and pasting lines from Theosophist books like was on the old article. For the moment the merge will probably stay. GreenUniverse (talk) 20:47, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I exaggerated writing “I don’t think the root race article should have been merged”; I was too late for the comment on Jeraphine Gryphon’s talk page and don't have that much of a problem with the merging; I don’t have the time to write an own article either, at least not in the next days. --217/83 16:45, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are great, dont be put off. [2]. Also he produced [3], notice the similar drum sound with lots of room ambient. Ceoil (talk) 11:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, I normally don’t judge bands because of one or two tracks. You had already made me listen to Copper, and I replied (quote: “okay but nothing special for me”) after my first listen to the longer track that bored me (see your reply that made me listen again). 18th Dye’s Poolhouse Blue was nothing special for me either, but still okay (I liked the feedback). --217/83 19:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can see both sides of this unfortunately. Whilst you are obviously "correct" in the sense that the titles wouldn't be capitalised in normal Norwegian, this anon is going to point out that those early Dimmu releases have capitalised titles, as per their cover art; the Dimmu website also capitalises For All Tid in the official band biography. WP:MOS states "Capitalization in foreign-language titles varies, even over time within the same language; generally, retain the style of the original" (which in this case is the original release (not what would be "correct" Norwegian). There's not a lot you can hit them with, unless you request for comment from someone used to dealing with issues like this, but don't get dragged into a pointless edit war. My £0.02 anyway. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I know everything is capitalised on the original release, but I edited according to what I thought to be general typography rules (and those I know from the German project). Thanks for your reply. --217/83 20:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This may be of use to you... Mysticum have a solitary album out on a notable label (compilation appearances and "contracts" without releases are meaningless). However, In the Streams of Inferno was listed as #37 in Terrorizer's "Top 40 Black Metal Albums" in their Secret History of Black Metal (September 2009). James Hoare wrote, "Astutely spotting the compatibility between black metal's authoritarian aesthetic and the unremitting violence of hammering, industrial-style beats, Mysticum provided inspiration for a whole sub-genre of cyber black metal. Dripping with mechanistic malevolence, Mysticum's debut sounds fresh, invigorating and dangerous over a decade on." May help with WP:N :-) I'd try and be more help with writing the article, but I need to go and listen to some metal in a field for a week or so... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just feel free to join whenever you have the time to do so. By the way, if you have a scanner, I would be interested in scans from that Secret History of Black Metal (actually thought of asking you since you improved the Parabellum article; thanks for that, by the way; I really like Parabellum’s music but still didn’t know much about the band except some rumours), no hurry either. --217/83 14:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a scanner, but haven't used it for a couple of years... I shall check whether it's still working! I'll help with the Mysticum any time I see some relevant... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. I have moved it to User:H. 217.83/MysticumMysticum by mistake - feel free to fix that to your liking. :) Rjd0060 (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --217/83 14:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, while there wasn't exactly a rumour which spread outside of wikipedia with the Joey Jordison case, some troll/idiot put it in the article in 2007. There's no record whatsoever of him playing for Gorgoroth. He has played for Satyricon of course though. Hat on the other hand did escalate into a rumour when somebody wrote in his article in November 2008 that he committed suicide in Russia, which too is false. Dark Prime (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I only knew about Jordison playing for Satyricon and thought I had missed something weird again. --217/83 18:56, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Canvassing regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Johnfos (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've started a bit of a clean-up on the Mysticum sandbox page, and I'm not back at school for a week or so, so I'll try and get it looking a bit more ship-shape. On another note... the Brazilian thrash metal page. Since I last looked, a load of redlinked bands have been added to the list on there, unsourced, and with no indication of notability. They need to be removed, as per *every other list*, but I'm aware that you feel that some of these bands are in fact notable, but no articles have been created. If you remember, I created a bunch of articles for this list a while back to demonstrate their notability, and would be happy to do so for some of the others if possible. Which would you like me to have a go at first (bearing in mind it takes quite some time to create an article that passes WP:N)? In the mean time, I'm going to remove the redlinked bands, but will reinstate when either articles have been created or at the very least sources have been provided to establish some kind of notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw these edits on my watchlist. I corrected links on the Brazilian Thrash Metal page because I am rather used to correct links than delete names; of course I remember you wrote some articles (the Holocausto article and maybe some other were translated for the German project by Sheep18 with whom I wrote the Agressor article). I think the most notable bands are featured but I might have forgotten some; and I don’t really know about many newer bands; an article on Apokalyptic Raids (obviously Hellhammer worshipping band) would be great, but I don’t know if there are enough “reliable sources” to write that. --217/83 10:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a (quick) look and Apocalyptic Raids appear to fail WP:MUSIC; they do sound pretty decent though! There's material to make an Attomica article (they pass notability criteria with multiple albums on Cogumelo). I'll try and summon up some energy later... Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Ekeroth's Swedish Death Metal, page 387. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Hope you know that “initiated in 1996 by black metal kids known from bands like Malign, Teitanblood, Dödfödd, Nefandus, Funeral Mist etc.” is totally wrong since Belfagor is the only founding member and he only played in Nefandus (and Hellsent, but I was referring to Ekeroth’s list), and no member ever was a Funeral Mist member if I am not completely wrong (Nord contributed vocals to a demo track, Belfagor wrote lyrics for one track on the Salvation album). By the way, do you know this recording (Belfagor was Malign’s live drummer on that one concert)? There’s also a cover by Watain. --217/83 12:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! With regards to edit summaries such as this, I would recommend trying to sound a little calmer. While I myself don't have much of an issue with profanity, there are many people around here that would find such language offensive. I realise you have a devil-may-care attitude about this sort of thing, but you should realise that people are less likely to take you seriously if you talk like some tough-guy schoolboy. Try to remain civil and collegial as much as possible, or at least avoid overt profanity. I personally find that sharply-worded sarcasm is much more satisfying than simply dropping the F-bomb ;) ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. The “talk like some tough-guy schoolboy” actually feels a bit weird since school is long ago (whether felt or “really”), but that doesn’t really matter, and of course I get the point. I don’t know whether you followed any conflicts I was involved in, but the problem is that though I would like to remain civil and collegial, it doesn’t really help since people will come up with some bullshit anyway, and they will actually pretend their comments were civil while mine were not (worst was the conflict with Williamsburgland which made me take a break from the English project for a while). If you don’t care about what conflicts I might have had, it’s okay; if you have questions, read my talk page or ask me for links and further information (same for others reading this). Sarcasm doesn’t really come to my mind while working here, but I might close this with a nice F word reference from another user's talk page (he had used that in a summary, too). --217/83 15:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, H.217.83. Your problematic use of edit summary has resulted in a notice board report. I do not find it actionable, although others may, but it is definitely not helpful. That type of commentary really weakens your position; to me that's a worse tragedy than any subjective perception of profanity. Tiderolls 20:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw it (and replied), but thanks for informing me anyway. --217/83 20:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cross of Lorraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sigil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSQUOTE: "Trivial spelling or typographical errors should be silently corrected—unless the slip is textually important." In this case, it's not textually important. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this line, in the End of the first wave section, is misleading: "When Bathory's Under the Sign of the Black Mark was released in 1987, the album was considered a death metal record". It implies that everyone back then saw the album as DM and that Bathory switcht from BM to DM. In truth, the terms were often interchangeable back then. Bathory's The Return was also called DM in 1985. I don't think it belongs.

Also, I don't think we need the heding End of the first wave. Usually, the first wave is seen as being everything up until 1991, when the second wave began. But the heding implies that we had a break between the first and second waves. ~Asarlaí 01:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my summaries? I know the first two Bathory records were called Death Metal (and of course I know the official Bathory page well enough), but the Black Metal term was used less as time went on, and I wrote that not only Metalion (who used the Black Metal term for the second album) started to rather use the Death Metal term more often. Of course I know terms were often interchangeable (which Slayer proves again if you have a look at earlier issues), but it is obvious that there was a change. But I have also thought about adding the referenced information that Under the Sign of the Black Mark was one of the most important influences for later Black Metal, so maybe it becomes more obvious that it doesn’t mean something like “Bathory started to growl and use down-tuned guitars”.

Do you have any reference for the claim that “[u]sually, the first wave is seen as being everything up until 1991, when the second wave began”? I cannot recall anybody calling this an established view, but rather got the impression that authors believe there was a gap, like, “Bathory turned Pagan/Wagnerian, Death Metal became the scene’s trend, and then A Blaze in the Northern Sky popped up”. As the person that restructured the article when I added the “End of the first wave” heading (maybe it could be replaced by another heading), I explained that “the latest fad of Black/Satanic bands seems to be over”, the quote being from Metalion’s 1987 Slayer issue, a document from the time discussed that rather used the Death Metal term for Satanic bands than the Black Metal term. So Black Metal somehow disappeared, and it is legit to see there is a time between the waves (and people like Metalion around 1991 and Fenriz [example] seeing Black Metal as returning/rising again rather confirm my point). Black Metal retired to an underground carrying on the tradition, and bands like Master’s Hammer, Grotesque, Treblinka and Morbid Angel were obviously another generation than Bathory and Hellhammer or Burzum and Emperor. And I think it makes no sense to carry this to my talk page; you should rather have addressed this on the article’s talk page since this is about the article which more people should have on their watchlist than my talk page. --217/83 06:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to answer. I still think the line about UTSotBM is somewhat misleading—as the terms wer' often interchangeable, and Bathory was being called DM before that album. I think we can say what you want to say without mentioning UTSotBM. All we need is the quote from Metalion: In 1987, in the fifth issue of his Slayer fanzine, Metalion wrote that "the latest fad of Black/Satanic bands seems to be over"...

Also, you can shift this to Talk:Black_metal if you like. ~Asarlaí 18:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this section should only me moved to the Black Metal talk page if the topic comes up again or needs more discussion, but if it is okay for you if we just remove the sentence about Under the Sign of the Black Mark (that is okay for me; if you do it, maybe link to this section in your summary so others can see we discussed that), it can stay here. --217/83 18:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC) I checked the talk page archive recently and had explained my edit there actually. --217/83 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want you to know that I know that you are a vandal, a sock puppet and a member of a high stakes network of professional Wikipedia vandalizes. I am still gathering evidence right now, but I plan to blow your little schedule,e WIDE OPEN very soon!--71.161.207.140 (talk) 02:26, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then tell me whose sock puppet and a part of which network you believe me to be (my contributions prove that your accusations that I was a vandal are wrong) and where you believe to have that knowledge from. Until then, stop with your stupid accusations and stop bothering me on my talk page. --217/83 04:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You will soon be exposed for your monstrous transgressions! Everything you've ever done is wrong and vile, and I am a force for good!--71.161.207.140 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good depends on the point of view. By the way, you may be blocked if you continue with that kind of messages. --217/83 21:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps what some of the IP user said here was inappropriate, so I do agree with the ban. That said, would it be fair to say your mum probably should have had an abortion? --SoulFartofMankind (talk) 02:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the point of view, too. --217/83 11:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Therion (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Secret of the Runes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Richard BB. I noticed that you made a comment in the edit summary for the page Order of Nine Angles that didn't seem very civil. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Richard BB 18:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know your name from my watchlist. I replied to your comment since you claimed the Star Game (which has an article) was not notable (I dislike “see also” sections and would have preferred to see it included in the main text, but I dislike such claims even more); nothing personal, more of a reference to your summary. Sorry that I didn’t reply before, and sorry if you took it personally. --217/83 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. I realise now that I was wrong to remove the item in question, but I just felt that the edit summary was perhaps a bit unhelpful. Still, no harm done -- apologies for removing a valid link in the first place (it seems that I hadn't thoroughly read the article to see how it was related!) – Richard BB 22:13, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact that your revert was unrelated to my "cruft edit" (removing references to non-notable bands from a borderline notable musician), you appear to have taken offence; I'm not sure where. Either way, the edit had nothing to do with your revert, but I will remind you to observe WP:CIVIL. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:38, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty sure there would be a reply to that summary. I was not sure what you meant by “fancruft” (I don’t know the term) and mean that you know where to stick it if this means something like “‘fanboy’ edit by H. 217.83” (because I had added the passage); if not, it means there is nothing to stick anywhere (sorry if you felt unjustly offended by my summary). And the band were not “non-notable”, they just lacked articles (I wrote those for Tha-Norr and Katharsis by now, I am now editing the Desaster article, and an Ungod article will hopefully follow soon; Nagelfar’s notability has now been shown as I improved the article); but we had this problem at least once. --217/83 21:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Root (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have forgotten our earlier discussion, please remember to only add genres to articles if sourced. Specifically, nowhere in Immortal (band) does it actually state the band is/was "death metal". It does mention that on their demos, lyrically they were influenced by death metal (which is supported by the given source, but only lyrically, not musically...read the source if you are unsure, this is why I made that change). Additionally, there is no good reason to remove a source supporting a genre. Whether or not you (or anyone else) asked for a source is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with having a source for a genre, as this can often be a contentious issue (as you seem to continually find). Lastly, do not add things like "(early)" to genres in the infobox. This is completely unnecessary. If someone wants to know when a band played a specific genre, they can read the article. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? I have not forgotten it! Read the reference (I think I added it, but I’m not sure), which states that “we were quite inspired by death metal bands, like Morbid Angel and Possessed. Our lyrics for the first demo was more oriented like that. Then when we adopted the imagery and makeup, our views became different. We started to look more towards Bathory and Celtic Frost for inspiration and began to develop our own style. We drew inspiration from our surroundings: the winter themes and nature.” Morbid Angel and Possessed are no gore bands (if that is what you mean by “influenced […] lyrically”), and I read that this is not only about the lyrics; look at the Bathory-inspired phase, that doesn’t include the lyrics. I never pretended there was something “wrong with having a source for a genre”, my problem is your absurd removal indicating you don’t know anything about the subject (as with Dissection). If “as you seem to continually find” is a “genre warrior” allegation, you know where you can stick that. And I think I didn’t add “early” but merely restored it (as with the genre) because it is absurd to remove it; I restored it and referenced it. --217/83 20:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. "We were quite inspired by death metal bands" does not mean "Immortal is a death metal band". "Our lyrics for the first demo was more oriented by that", this is exactly what I changed the article to say, that their lyrics were inspired by death metal bands. The question that begins the discussion is about their image and lyrics ("Immortal’s image and lyrical content has always been connected to nature and winter. Where did this inspiration come from?"). So again, the source does not support that the band played death metal music. Thus the addition of "death metal" to the article is unsourced, and will be removed until you or another editor can add a source explicitly stating this.

You seem to be under the misconception that I don't listen to these bands or that I don't know what is/isn't black metal. I'm perfectly aware of what these bands' styles are, but I'm also aware of WP:V. Information added to articles must be sourced, and adding things simply because you know them is not acceptable. If you know something is true, find a source for it, then add it.

Also, WP:BRD. If your edit is reverted and you disagree with it, bring it up on the talk page of the article for discussion. Edit warring does nothing to help the article.

Lastly, since you clearly have not yet read it, despite several recommendations to do so above, read WP:CIVIL. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing a source supporting that the band performed death metal. Again, in the future, regardless of what you know, be sure that you include sources supporting your genre additions, or make sure that existing sources actually support what they claim to support. I have cleaned up some of the language in that section to better represent what the sources say (the specific mention of Possessed and MA is still only referencing their lyrical influences). Additionally, per Template:Infobox musical artist: "most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized." I have fixed the capital D in death metal. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know the difference between “inspired by death metal bands” and “is a death metal band”. I also read the sentence about the lyrics, but there is more than that, so it’s not as clear as you believe it to be (despite the question you quoted, it could still be read as “inspired musically and lyrically”). If you remove Death Metal from the box and categories, I don’t get the impression that you are “perfectly aware of what these bands' styles are”; you should know there is still the “citation needed” tag (same as with Dissection back then); don’t forget the conflict started with your deletion, not an addition. The capitalisation in the box was a mistake, I didn’t intend that. And as with Dissection back then, don’t you tell me about civility (same goes for the other users or at least most of them). --217/83 22:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If undoing obvious vandalism (by a user I warned before reporting them, see intervention page) justifies being blocked, so be it (though it is absurd); I won’t go through the unblock procedure, I have better things to do. --217/83 14:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, I don't think this block is justified. The user in question was removing sourced removal with neither consensus, discussion, or an edit summary. H. 217.83 rightfully reverted his edits and even warned the user on his talk page. 3RR and edit war rules do not exist when it comes to vandalism. Bwilkins, I urge you to reconsider this block (and 217.83, I think you should appeal this block). – Richard BB 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of edits by the other editor are on the fringe of vandalism and a content dispute. Removing significant amounts of material from articles is vandalism, but the editor removed one genre. I might add that the removed genre had two sources, the second of which I can't verify because it's a book. However, the first doesn't seem to support the genre (although, admittedly, I'm hardly an expert on this sort of thing). It talks about heavy metal being an "inspiration" but seems to say that the band's actual music was something else. In any event, blatant edit-warring, as H. did here, is not the optimal way to handle this sort of situation. No matter how you describe the other editor's change, it wasn't the sort of edit that urgently required reversion (like more typical vandalism). Finally, given his history of edit-warring, H. is lucky not to have been blocked for longer.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Bbb23, do you want a quote from the book? --217/83 18:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

H. 217.83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for undoing obvious vandalism (and I had warned the user before reporting them), which is absurd. I didn’t really care to go through the procedure, but as Richard wrote the thinks I “should appeal this block” (see above), well then. --217/83 12:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Block expired. Bbb23 (talk) 16:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

When someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia tells you to appeal, it's not a good idea to actually appeal (akin to listening to someone who doesn't understand gravity but tells you that you should jump off a cliff). When an admin (BB23) tells you that the edits were only on the fringe of vandalism, then it's a good time to listen. The edits you continued to edit-war over were a content dispute and not vandalism. As you have been blocked for the same types of actions before, you know better - indeed, I lowered the amount of time you were blocked in order to match the block of the other edit-warrior. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the removal of referenced material was vandalism. And I didn’t know Bbb23 is an administrator because I don’t know them and don’t check who is or is not an administrator before I reply. --217/83 13:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) And administrators aren’t error-free either. --217/83 16:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you still believe that you were reverting vandalism, even though you've been shown differently, then your block is not G.A.B-compliant and you will not be unblocked. You must both understand your block and ensure it won't happen again for an unblock to be successful. The above certainly does not meet those requirements (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote thought, not think, and I do understand the block, I just think it is absurd to be blocked for restoring information removed by a user whose edits are “on the fringe of vandalism”. Look at the Immortal article, by the way; the user removed the information again, but I didn’t undo their edit because I didn’t want to be blocked again because some administrator thinks I go on with the edit war or something. --217/83 16:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wise, as returning to the same edit would lead to a new block. Have you read the different options under WP:DR? For example, a 3rd opinion or an WP:RFC? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:45, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. Would you please undo the last two edits? After Tresla1408 removed the referenced Death Metal term, some IP address added Turbo-folk. --217/83 17:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BWilkins, I resent the claim that I "do not understand" Wikipedia. Frankly, I also find your words appallingly uncivil considering you are supposed to be an admin. I judged this circumstance based upon what I saw (and what I saw was someone removing material without discussion and this user readding it and sufficiently warning the deleter), not upon his history of edit warring, which I was not aware of. I would kindly ask you to strike your comments or otherwise take them back. – Richard BB 17:59, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you suggest he appeal a block for edit-warring over what was obviously not vandalism? Yes - you screwed that one up bad - a very poor suggestion, and one that showed a misunderstanding of the entire situation - and your suggestion that the block was bad was indeed more of an insult. No incivility was intended towards you, and I certainly do not think that H.217 saw it as an attempt to insult (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t have the impression you attempted to insult Richard, but I think it is his business to react if he feels your words are appalingly uncivil, and I can understand his reaction based upon his last post (judging based upon what he saw and not my history of edit warring; the different between this error and being “someone who doesn't understand Wikipedia” is big enough to be offended by your comment even though you might not have intended that);. --217/83 20:49, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion here regarding this subject; I'd appreciate your input. – Richard BB 18:52, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was not about the capitalisation of that word but the fact that your edit resulted in “theistic Satanisms” instead of “Satanists”. But I’ll hopefully find the time to look at the talk page later. I guess you saw my reply above (about what the administrator wrote and your reaction to it, which I can understand). --217/83 18:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I do apologise (I didn't even realise that my edit resulted in "Satanisms" -- I don't know how that happened). Still, though, I'm going to take the capitalisation issue to the relevant talk page so we can hopefully get a consensus :) and yes, I saw the reply. I disagree with him saying that the other user's edits weren't vandalism (in my view they were -- he was removing sourced content without discussion), and so I support your actions. However, I'm going to wash my hands of this situation, as I can't see any good coming of it. WP:STICK and all that. – Richard BB 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t worry, I was sure it wasn’t intentional. And thanks for your support above; of course I understand you will wash your hands etc. I didn’t know the page you linked to, only the expression it is based upon; thanks for the link. --217/83 21:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies about that quote in the black metal article -- I literally went through with Ctrl+F and changed the instances of 'Theistic' to 'theistic'; I missed the fact that that was a quote (I really haven't been on the ball, lately...). – Richard BB 15:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I used the standard reply, hope you didn’t take it the wrong way (I don’t think so). --217/83 15:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Jewish mysticism page development: I'm in the process of writing something different on this page, that I began last week - I'll do it today. The whole text "History of Jewish mysticism" User:Editor2020 pasted from Kabbalah is not suitable here, for the reasons I wrote on Talk:Kabbalah (and see Talk:Jewish mysticism). That text is best on Kabbalah page. Rather than duplicating it twice, today I'll make the timeline table of Jewish mysticism history I intended. (First I'll have to revert to my begining version). April8 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I followed your explanations on the talk page, but then I saw the newer, longer version and just edited it a bit. Maybe you could copy my corrections to the Kabbalah article where the content came from (a lot more passages need references, I just picked the few I found most important). --217/83 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I won't have time to add your links and "citation needed" tags etc. to Kabbalah#History of Jewish mysticism section (got so much wikpedia and wikimedia commons work to do in this edit binge, and very little time). However, notice that yesterday I added a lot to the Kabbalah page, including the history section. April8 (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll look at the Kabbalah article when I find some time to do so and copy the stuff there. --217/83 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Done. --217/83 11:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A word of warning: I notice that User:Editor2020 recently deleted one or more small parts of the text on the Kabbalah page because they lacked citations/remained "unreferenced" tagged (eg. "unreferenced since 2007!"). "Citation needed" tags are good if they work in a) causing removal of wrong material or b) causing addition of citations. However, maybe they need to be used carefully? - as they might cause some (reasonably) good material to go? - if the page is important. (just an idea! There aren't enough presently active substantial Jewish Kabbalah editors on wikipedia: you might be able to count them on one hand? ..or less?!) April8 (talk) 21:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some things shouldn’t be written without a reference in the first place. If you (or any other authors) refer to another person’s statement, it should also be referenced; especially someone like Scholem is known to have written quite a lot and even translated his works into other languages himself, therefore the reader should know which of his many works references that part of the article. --217/83 11:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, or you'll cause an edit conflict - too many cooks spoil the broth. Better if I can do it alone today. April8 (talk) 20:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry. I appreciate your work, so I’ll stop it for today so you can go on without an edit conflict. --217/83 20:39, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! How about you adding some images to Christian Kabbalah page? I made the Kabbalah display page on wikimedia commons: "Kabbalah" - including sections for Christian Cabala and Hermetic Qabalah. Eg. I like the idea of these 3:

The first, "De Harmonia Mundi totius" would require adding Francesco Giorgi chronologically to the page's text (1466–1540). The third's caption can explain that it shows the Trinity at the top (I think) - ie. interpreting the Sephirot as rooted in the Trinity. (NB. see Arich Anpin#Two Partzufim-Configurations and three Reishin-Heads in Keter-Crown). April8 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn’t reply earlier. I hope I can take care of the pictures this week. --217/83 11:16, 28 March 2013 (UTC) Done. --217/83 20:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, stop assuming things about me. Of course I know about demos, EPs, etc. There is a limited amount of space in the edit summary box, so I didn't write out every single kind of possible release ever. Perhaps I should have used the word "release" instead of "album", but frankly I figured you would be smart enough to understand my meaning. Obviously I was wrong, so in the future I will try not to overestimate your intelligence.

And stop edit warring. If you disagree with my removal of this information that was added, then bring it up on the talk page per WP:BRD. Some other editor made a bold edit, I reverted it, if you think it should stay then discuss it and wait until consensus is reached before reverting my revert. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wasn’t really believing you didn’t know about demos, EPs, bootlegs etc., and I know that there is a limited amount of space in the edit summary box. I reacted that way because of our experience and the impression left; like you deleting stuff you claim to know instead of including a “citation needed” claim or something which doesn’t make you seem intelligent enough to claim you were overestimating my intelligence. Like removing Death Metal from Immortal’s box yet claiming you knew they started as a Death Metal act (see above); guess what impression that leaves (there are several options I think of). --217/83 23:05, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The impression it is intended to leave is that Wikipedia requires sourcing, verifiability, and has policies and guidelines in place that are to be followed, and that I intend to follow them (and expect other editors to follow them as well). I remove plenty of unsourced (or poorly sourced or information misinterpreted/misrepresented from a source, in the case of the above Immortal conflict) information that users add, even though I know the information to be true, because Wikipedia policy trumps my (or your, or anyone's) knowledge of "truth". Maybe also the impression that I get pretty anal about adhering to those policies. Any other impression you get from my edits and talk page posts is incorrect.

I don't use the cite needed tag very often, because more often than not, all that results is a sentence sitting there for 4 years with a cite needed tag. Instead, I want editors to add information with a source to begin with.

I'm sorry for the "overestimating" comment. I should probably wait and think before posting stuff like that in the future. I've struck that through above. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can assume good faith (that’s no sarcasm), but I guess you can understand why I got the impression that you didn’t know anything about Dissection (where you just undid the edits and left no comment like “reference needed” until the conflict got extreme) and Immortal (or at least no impression of a constructive editor) back then, can’t you?

Sticking too much to certain rules (of which many may be unknown to many other users; I didn’t know Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle before you linked to that one, for example, and IP addresses or new users may not know any rules at all or only those from the German, French etc. projects which may differ) turns out to be a huge problem, at least that’s where I see a (or the) source of my clashes with Baz and you. I sometimes got the impression some of you editors see nothing but these rules.

I prefer the tags really, though I understand your objections. But if some content is true (or what we believe to be true) and not that hard to reference (like genre tags), I find it better than just deleting that content (especially without any proper explanation, see Dissection).

I appreciate that you struck the “overestimating” comment through, but I can assure you that this is nothing compared to what I had to take from Williamsburgland (as a registered user; I didn’t even take their IP vandalism seriously), or even the Dissection conflict or my early conflicts with Baz (the experience with Williamsburgland was the worst of all though). --217/83 00:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've managed to avoid WBL, seems like it's best that way.

Keep in mind, the only real issue I had with this latest Dissection thing was that I felt stating "some song they wrote was never recorded" was unnecessary. Lots of bands write songs that they then discard and never record; I don't feel that this is something worth pointing out in an article (thus my original edit summary of "rm unnecessary", it wasn't that I didn't know whether the song had been recorded and released, just that I didn't think that information was important enough to mention in the article).

I know we got off on the wrong foot when I called you a "genre warrior" (but look at it from my point of view, after years of "drive-by" edits by random people who think that the genre in the infobox should only reflect their personal opinion, it gets hard to tell what is a random opinion-based edit and what is an edit from someone who actually knows what they are talking about), and I apologised for that (and it was sincere). I did learn from that experience, and try not to WP:BITE newcomers now.

Tell you what, in the future, if you and I disagree on something, I'll start using tags instead of straight-up removing stuff, and either of us can start a discussion on the talk page to sort it out. I'm not here to make enemies, and from the edits I've seen you make, you generally make good contributions to the encyclopedia (in an area that needs all the help it can get). Our disagreements seem to get out of hand long before they should, so I suggest we both try not to get into edit wars and insults right off the bat, but instead try to come to a consensus or compromise that works for both of us (like we eventually did for this Dissection disagreement). Sound good? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I think we should be able to work together in the future. Sometimes it takes a bit longer, see my conflicts with Baz (it helped to know he sees that I do good contributions).

I see the problem with Dissection. Of course I know of other bands who have songs that never were recorded, only exist on bootlegs, or were renamed, but where I know they existed.

I can also understand that you have a problem with people changing the genres all the time since I have the Venom article on my watchlist and it was done there very often. I added some invisible comment to the box to avoid that, but it didn’t keep everybody from going on.

By the way, there are many articles that are not on my watchlist (I’m more active on the German project, where I edit more articles that are not related to Black Metal and sometimes articles about esoteric topics than here) and need improvement, so feel free to inform me if you see some notable band with a notability tag or something like that, if it’s something I might be able to improve (like NWoBHM and other old Metal, and of course Black Metal etc.). Next I want to take care of are Secrets of the Moon and Krieg. --217/83 17:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'm glad we worked this out.

I've seen those comments used as well, and I think I've even used them a couple times. As you say, they help, but don't completely work. Constant vigilance, I suppose.

I will definitely let you know if I see articles that you could improve. You have access to several sources I don't (certain books I don't own, Slayer magazines, etc), so I know you'll be able to add useful info. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for your addition of images and text to Christian Kabbalah, which I wouldn't have had time to do. Sorry for my relative absence for a week or two on Jewish mysticism page: I edit in local internet cafes (don't have own computer), and have been unwell, plus busy with Jewish festivals, plus in available time have been reading up on Jewish mysticism in preparation for the page's development. I've been planning how the page should be developed beyond the timeline table (when it's finished): after the table I plan a text section, "General characteristics of Jewish mysticism", with 2 sub-headings, "Historical perspectives" and "Theological perspectives". This explains the pile of reading I've been contemplating! As it is, I'm borrowing time from other urgent activities to do this wikipedia edit session. I hope to complete the Jewish mysticism page before time runs out, as it may be a number of months before I could return to wikipedia. You're probably right about need for references/adding "citation needed tags" - it was just an idea; though born of my sense that I may be the only substantial Jewish Kabbalah editor presently active, and was seeking personal reduction of wikipedia pressure/responsibility to fill in the tags with citations (which could take years!) before someone deletes the text! Best wishes April8 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome, and there is still a lot more that could be taken from Don Karr etc. Don’t worry, you have as much a right to keep away from the project as I (I took a longer break from the English project after my conflict with Williamsburgland; worst experience of all users I had conflicts with). Hope you recovered.

The part about reducing pressure makes sense, and I think I didn’t add that many templates. --217/83 18:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been considering the Jewish mysticism timeline table's layout: now that mystical elements in Medieval Jewish philosophical theology has its own section, and as modern Neo-Hasidic mystical theology (eg. Abraham Joshua Heschel) will have its own section, therefore I think Maharal's early-modern mystical theology should have its own section. In The Jewish Religion: A Companion (entry Judah Loew), Louis Jacobs says that the Maharal was influenced by Kabbalah, but expresses his "mystically tinged theology" in his own terminology, without reference to Kabbalistic terms. Therefore, his innovative theology should not be put in the Kabbalah sections. These additions mean that the table covers all aspects of Judaism that could be termed "mystical": a) mystical elements in exoteric theology, b) esoteric Kabbalistic theology, c) Practical Kabbalah mystical-magic, d) direct mysticism meditative encounters (eg. Merkabah mysticism, Abraham Abulafia). While eg. Christian mysticism, and mysticism in general, tends to the intuitive-meditative-experiential, Jewish mysticism in contrast tends to the theosophical-theological-exegetical. Various leading Jewish theosophical Kabbalists had mystical-meditative encounters of the first kind (Isaac Luria's heavenly learning ascents, Baal Shem Tov's theurgic heavenly ascents, Vilna Gaon's choice to reject the mystical maggid teacher he was offered in order to achieve learning himself, etc.), but other important Kabbalists were scholarly mystics instead. Scholem discusses this in a quote I'll add later, that mainstream-theosophical Kabbalah is a particular form of mysticism, as it describes a mystical gnosis theological doctrine rather than meditative encounter. In the conventional (restricted) sense of the term, Kabbalists who were purely scholarly were not phenomenologically "mystics" themselves, though their doctrine describes-claims mystical knowledge beyond human reason. April8 (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to see these improvements. --217/83 18:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, someone's editing genres at Immortal. If you'd like to comment at Talk:Immortal (band) about whether you think these genres should be removed or not, please feel free to do so. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I was inactive for a few days so I didn’t see the message before today. --217/83 10:11, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Aborym may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• ], [[Keep of Kalessin]], [[Mayhem (band)|Mayhem]], [[Plasma Pool]], [[Scum (band)|Scum]], [[Sunn O)))]], [[Thorns (band)|Thorns]], [[Tormentor]], [[Unanimated]], [[Void of Silence]], [[Watain]]
• bio>http://web.archive.org/web/20011119162100/http://web.tiscali.it/aborym/bio.html ''Biography''], accessed on 13 June 2013.</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:19, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rob Darken may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• to separate from Eastern world. Communist did the same but they of course favouritized ''[sic¡]]'' Slavs."<ref>[http://www.thepaganfront.com/graveland/interviews.html ''Interviews''. ''The most

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

A dispute has arisen on the Amon Amarth talk page as to whether the band should be called Viking metal in the article. This probably also extends to whether the List of Viking metal bands should include the band. I'm inviting you to this discussion for two reasons: 1. The objecting editors voice the opinion that because Viking metal arose out of black metal in the 80's, not death metal, a death metal band cannot play Viking metal even if they deal with Viking-related subject matter. From what I've seen of your edits and discussion on the black metal page, you argue that there wasn't one specific style of "black metal" during the first wave, but rather that black metal was strictly a lyrical focus. I thought that this difference of perspective might prove useful in the discussion. 2. The subject is related to black metal, and you have expert knowledge of that subject and access to very useful period sources. I thought that maybe you might have information regarding the relationship between Viking, black, and death metal.

Thanks, --¿3family6 _contribs 19:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I argued the same way referring to the second wave (Finnish and Greek sound etc.). I don’t have much time on my hands these days but I hope I can find some time to contribute to the discussion. --217/83 21:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For your excellent work in thoroughly researching Amon Amarth's relationship to the Viking metal genre, THANK YOU! Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand the articles for Hünengrab im Herbst, Srontgorrth, Virus West and The Ruins of Beverast? Nite-Sirk (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I hope I can take care of these articles soon. --217/83 16:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Weapon (band) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on .

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• be aware, there was a legal...''], October 23, 2012, accessed on September 10., 2013.</ref><ref>[https://www.facebook.com/theweaponchakra/posts/486291944738352 ''As some of you may be aware, there

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]