Talk:Megadeth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Progressive Metal?

Megadeth is NOT progressive metal, that's all. Rust in Peace is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.9.6.204 (talk) 18:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not. Having just quite technical solos =/= a progressive album. Having all of the songs less than 7 mins =/= a progressive album. Having simple riffs with no tempo changes =/= a progressive album. I think you get the point. They aren't progressive in any way. --79.64.234.155 (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not progressive but that album does display many qualities of progressive metal, most notably Five Magics.

--Crispyman01 (talk) 09:55, 22 February 2010

Are The Beatles a blues band because they released a song "Yer Blues" with a typical blues musical style? A band is branded by their majority; otherwise many bands would have uncountable, often misleading or contradicting genre attachments. Styk0n (talk) 02:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Styk0n

F5

David started this metal/hard rock group called F5 and I was wondering if I should ad it as a "assosiated acts" thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.152.137 (talk) 21:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

This list should be limited or corrected somehow.

Associated acts should be gigantic since there have been a load of members with a load of bands over the years. The Asscociated acts list should only contain the former bands for the CURRENT members of megadeth or ALL of the former members. Not a hybryd... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.11.21.112 (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, David Ellefson is currently part of the band, so that would seem to count anyway. Also, the bands of significant former members are relevant, as their music may have influenced the style etc of the band's music. Regardless, we don't decide what the field is for, that is done on a grander scale that affects all musicians and bands. Take a look at Template:Infobox musical artist#associated acts for more info. Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 01:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

No source for Hard Rock....again

I've removed Hard Rock from the page once again, as there still isn't a source stating as such. Quxert (talk) 16:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

This-- was the only "source" this manufactured argument ever had. 147.97.241.59 (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't look like they'll ever find a source. But apparently it's a valid addition. With no professional review stating "Megadeth has hard rock consistently throughout their entire discography", there is obviously not a real consensus here. 75.111.124.82 (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

And, if you look back at archived discussions, the consensus is composed of Wiki Lib's sockpuppet regime. The current 206.X and 68.X IPs lurking around, hmmm... 75.111.124.82 (talk) 05:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Left handed?

Is Mustaine left handed or right handed? It says that the group broke up in 2002 because he broke his left hand. BulsaraAndDeacon (talk) 09:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Mustaine is right handed. And Megadeth didn't break up because he broke his left (fretting) hand; he had a nerve injury in his left hand. Majestic122 (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah right handed he strums with his right hand.—Preceding unsigned comment added by MetalShark (talk • contribs)

Their name

Shouldn't the article mention how the idea for their name came from Dr. Strangelove? Nymersic (talk) 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The article talks about the acquisition of their name, through an official quote by one of the band members. For an encyclopedic article I think that's enough. Styk0n (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Styk0n

No source for Hard rock...still.

I seriously had enough of this, people should follow Wikipedia's guidelines that no original thoughts should be added, therefore all content must have reliable sources. Adding genres like hard rock deemed debatable must have a reliable source. This means that even if you add a source, unless it follows Wikipedia's guidelines on what constitutes a reliable source, you shouldn't add it. Please follow guidelines, participate discussions, and stop removing my note in the genres section before adding other genres like hard rock or any other information. Thanks--Jonah Ray Cobbs 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)JRC3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRC3 (talk • contribs)

A Wikipedia administrator already ended this debate. The discussion is found in archive 2 of this talk page. The link provided is already used as a citation for sales on several Wikipedia pages and is found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.188.31 (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The words "hard rock" on any subject not having to do with the album Risk was brought up by Wiki Libs sockpuppets (which you can see struck out on the argument you are referring to). Before then, the page contained merely heavy metal, thrash metal, and speed metal (FA status). 147.97.240.240 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(Chirping crickets) 75.111.126.149 (talk) 03:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Associated Acts

Shouldnt Metallica been on the assoiciated acts list, Dave was in Metalllica, And shouldnt Slayer be on their as well, Kerry King was in Megadeth for a short period of time. And also they are also kind of all linked together beacuse of the 'Big Four' label. --XBurningAlive (talk) 16:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

No. According to Template:Infobox musical artist, groups with only one member in common should be avoided.--Cannibaloki 17:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Mustaine's got a writing credit on "Kill 'em All" though, doesn't that make it relevant enough to have a mention? It's mentioned on the Kill 'em All page. Realistically it's less significant to Kill 'em All that Mustaine was on it as a whole than it is to Mustaine for being credited on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.135.72 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

megadeth concert tours

Why hasn`t anybody started the article about Megadeth concert tours like Metallica, Kiss, Aerosmith, AC/DC and so on.. have???

Slayer has the same problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.12.217 (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Is an entire section for a Megadeth concert really necessary? Styk0n (talk) 02:28, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Styk0n

New Album For 2011?

I read in ultimate guitar (http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/upcoming_releases/megadeth_aim_for_new_album_in_2011.html) that megadeth says is possible that next album will be released in 2011, should that be added to the article?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karvaky (talk • contribs) 17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Answer D:< —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karvaky (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthrax Info

in Endgame to present can someone explain what the last sentence has to do with megadeth?

"Anthrax recently welcomed back singer Joey Belladonna and now permanently back in the band, will be front-and-center"74.43.55.167 (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't find this section; most probably because of the inclusion of new information upon the release of their most recent album. Styk0n (talk) 02:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

2011 Album Release Date

Tonight, on the Cyber Army chat, Dave said the album will most likely be out after summer 2011. He also said there is to be a Peace Sells tour next year and a Countdown to Extinction tour in 2012. He revealed he has about 8 songs written as of now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.4.247 (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Record Labels

Shouldn't Sanctuary Records be on the labels list too because they've been with them around 2002 (Rude Awakening came out under Sanctuary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.125.4.202 (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mustaine wishes to retire after new album in 2011

It has been put on record that Dave Mustaine has said that he wishes to retire after this next contracted Megadeth album with roadrunner records. This leaves the future of the band uncertain after the end of 2011.This should be discussed in the article.(march 2, 2011) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deth777 (talk • contribs) 14:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

perhaps this interview? http://www.heavyhell.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=6365:dave-mustaine-prefer-retirement-before-roadrunner-records&catid=29:interviews&Itemid=2

--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Genre

I don't think the first source for Hard Rock is good. Are the guys from "Ilikemusic" experts? Megadeth have absolutely no Hard Rock music. People generalize. "Hard Rock" isn't just a harder form of rock. It's different from genres like Heavy Metal or Punk Rock. Megadeth is not hard rock.--Revilal90 (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It fits for some of of Youthanasia, some of Cryptic Writings, and most notably Risk. Just because it says 'hard rock' doesn't mean its calling ALL of their back catalogue hard rock, only some parts of it.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 20:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

"Kicking arse"

"Self-satisfied hairdressers"

It's why the article lost its FA status. The genre trolls began creating this circular argument "well, you can't prove that they're NOT hard rock", so the article and albums lost their credibility. I guess the people with the power decided that Youthanasia and Cryptic Writings were the same strain of music as say, Load and Reload. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.97.174.229 (talk) 22:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Main pic

Although this sort of music is not really my cup of tea, and I'm uncertain why I have once again ended up on this page, it strikes me that as a main photo in the infobox we want something that shows the outfit "kicking arse" rather than a photo in which they look like a group of self-satisfied West Coast hairdressers applauding their latest attempt at a cut'n'blo. I have tried to effect this change once before and someone reverted it, so I am now both trying again and attempting to elicit an opinion from all you heavy-rockin' cats out there. Ericoides (talk) 06:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

I think the latter image is more recent (and one must also take into account the lineup changes since '08 - G. Drover was replaced by Broderick, and LoMenzo was replaced by the returning Ellefson) and that may be one reason it keeps getting put up. That being said however, I cast my vote for the earlier "kicking arse" image, as it's more what one would expect to see on a page about a heavy metal band. Ultimately, what's needed is a current (featuring current members) image of the band doing a show. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 06:05, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

My own interpretation is that the point of a main picture is to get each band member within the shot and so that they can be recognized. What you say about them being "in their natural habitat" is noted (in the current image used on the site, at the time of writing). I think that this should be some sort of guideline for pictures of bands. Styk0n (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

This one's for the cause

the article currently states (in the So Far So Good So What section): "On May 11, 1988, at a show in Antrim, Northern Ireland, Dave Mustaine drunkenly dedicated the song Anarchy in the UK to the IRA saying "This one is for the cause, give Ireland back to the Irish!", causing a riot amongst the audience between Catholics and Protestants" According to interviews with Mustaine what he said was just "This one's for the cause." A 'friend' had told him to say it and Mustaine claims to have not known what it meant at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.131.138 (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If you could provide a source for it that'd be great. It doesn't look like the current "quote" is sourced at all, so it's pretty hard to verify one way or another. (Incidentally, the lack of a source seems to be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on quotations for precisely that reason.) Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Official Band Members

Can we sort this out? I think we can cut the list down a lot, what is the definition of a "band member" covering a couple of live dates is not justifiable for a person to be in the band. Brian Welch covered a couple of dates for Limp Bizkit, but it doesn't mean he was an official member. As for Kerry King, 6 days does not make him a member of the band. I think the list should be cut down to only cover members that are listed on the albums80.229.169.189 (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I already reverted one of your edits on the Megadeth members page, but I see you in turn reverted it. What does it matter if he was in the band for 6 days or 6 years? Also, I can tell that you are misreading the date format. The chart is using the American MM/DD/YYYY rather than the international standard DD/MM/YYYY, meaning King was actually in the band for about 6 months (not 6 days) as listed.

It is my understanding Mustaine wanted him to stay in the band longer, but King left to focus on Slayer, and thus the Mustaine-King rift stated to take shape. Point is, he's a notable musician (of course, that is more due to Slayer though) and that warrants mention. Until this is settled, I will be reverting your edits back to the older status quo, as you made no attempt to discuss the issue beforehand.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Can we discuss it now? King is not notable for being in megadeth, he should be removed 80.229.169.189 (talk) 20:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I was discussing the issue at hand, I just happen to disagree with your viewpoint. It does not matter if he is notable or not in Megadeth. For that matter, why don't we remove Kirk Hammett from Exodus? He wasn't on any studio recordings by them or in the band for a long time, or some of the early members of Anthrax or Iron Maiden of whom few people have ever heard? Just get over it - King was in the band for a few months in 1984 while playing in Slayer at the same time.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Kirk is notable in Exodus because he was one of the original members, King does not need to be listed as an official member as he only covered live dates, I think that is sufficient to note that and remove him from the official list 80.229.169.189 (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

King was in Megadeth; he was a band member. In light of consistency and to not start arguments about "who is more worthy of a mention in the 'band member' section", I believe that all band members who had a role as more than a supporting instrumentalist while on tour should be mentioned. For example (this is from Metallica); in 1986 when Hetfield broke his arm, he had his guitar technician step in to play his guitar role. His guitar technician wasn't a member of the band, he was just a stand in. King was an official member, as verified by Dave Mustaine, for a period of time. That is all that matters. Styk0n (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Rude Awakening (merging the 2 current entries)

I just wanted to note on here (because this will get more traffic than either of the current Rude Awakening pages) that, barring dramatic opposition to the idea, I will eventually be merging the article on the Rude Awakening DVD with that of the CD, as there really is no excuse for a separate article for each release. It isn't the case for That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires and it shouldn't be the case here, either.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock

I'd just like point this out, under the Thirteen (2010–present)headline the second-to-last-sentence says: "He also confirmed in an interview with Rolling Stone on July 12, 2011 that a title track (TH1RT3EN), NeverDead and Sudden Death, which earlier appeared in the video game Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, will be included on the album". To me that sounds like it is saying that TH1RT3EN & NeverDead appeared in Guitar Hero: Warriors of Rock, which obviously they did not. 86.46.59.99 (talk) 14:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Will fix.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Beat ya too it . Y Done Alphathon /'æɫfə.θɒn/ ^(talk) 16:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting of "Megadeth" article

Split The "Megadeth" article should be split up, since it is over 100 MB in length. This can be done by moving the History or Awards sections into their own separate articles, or by shortening the history sections to rely on the album articles. Additionally, an article entitled Megadeth lyrical themes and controversy could be created to shorten the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Under no circumstances should you split the History section. The history section is the primary content of the article, and should account for the bulk of it. The other sections are not of sufficient content to warrant splitting. There really is no problem with the article being ~100 KB; Sometimes an article simply needs to be big to give the subject adequate coverage. If splitting is warranted, it's usually not a good idea to split off (A) important sections that make up the article's core content, or (B) trivial or controversial sections that would not be sufficient enough to stand alone and would be inappropriate outside the context of the parent article. Also note that the article was demoted from FA-class and is now rated C-class: Splitting off major important content would be a huge step in the wrong direction. Rather, the existing content needs to be improved in order to help the article move back toward FA; This improvement can include trimming/whittling down/summarizing if it seems that the article is bloated with minor details, but most of the history is already summarized and split where appropriate. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree, that as policies or guidelines are now written, that the History section should remain in the article. Having said this, in my considered opinion, policy could be changed such that if the History section does become too long even with trimming, the history could be put in its own article entitled "History of Megadeth" or "Megadeth History". That way, people who are interested in learning more about the history of the band could visit that page if they chose to do so, while leaving the most pertinent parts of the history to the introduction. IllaZilla stated on the Guns N' Roses page that "lists of members, discographies, awards, and—as a last resort—influence are all things that can be spun off into separate articles". Therefore, the Controversy and Lyrical themes sections could potentially be moved to their own pages to get the article under 100 MB. The size is one of the reasons listed for the article not being a Featured Article.

Having said this, three of the pictures shown on the site depict musicians who have their own articles, which could be removed to further reduce file size.

Thanks!

The Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

If you split off the history you'd have a very short article bereft of the most important content: the biography of the band. For almost any biographical article, the "history" (what for an individual would be the "life and career" section") is the most important and salient content of the entire article. The idea of splitting it off into a separate article is patently ridiculous: An encyclopedia article about a band/person is about the history of that band/person. That's the whole point. Making the "Controversy" section into a separate article would be giving the topic undue weight (see WP:SIZE). I suggest that if size was one of the reasons the article was demoted, then you really ought to have a new assessment, because there are plenty of Featured Articles about musicians that are this long or longer: Michael Jackson (over 212 KB), Metallica (104 KB), Sex Pistols (124 KB), Motörhead (91 KB), Nine Inch Nails (110 KB), etc. I doubt you would find a single FA musician article that has has its History section split off into a separate article, though you may see summary style forking used where appropriate (which, again, this article already does). Taking a glance over this article, I see several places where the wording could be tightened up in ways that would help whittle the size a bit. It's a matter of making every word tell, not shuffling the core content off to other places which would be a huge disservice to readers. --IllaZilla (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment I agree, that at this time, we should only split off the "List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth" and have a "Main Article" link to this (perhaps with a short listing of awards).

Thanks!

Phoenix--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Another quick observation: The History is divided into 16 subsections, 1 for each of the band's studio albums. This is overkill. It would be wise to combine sections, trim wording where appropriate, and have sections that cover a greater span of time than just 1 or 2 years. Also you could do away with all of the "main article" links below each section header: Of course each album has its own article, and these should already be linked where the album is first mentioned in the prose (and of course the discography section links them all too, as does the navbox). These "main article" links are just more overkill. Again, take a look at the FAs for Metallica or Slayer (to pick 2 of Megadeth's closest contemporaries) to see how it's done. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Another note: There are 20 music samples scattered within the prose of this article. That's way too much non-free content for a single artist. I note in the FAR that this was one of the major factors in the article being demoted. 3 or at most 4 representative samples to show the band's musical style and evolution would be acceptable, and not inline (they should be in audio sample boxes so they're prominent). Ideally these should be from the band's most well-known or highest-charting/selling songs, and/or from various points in their career to illustrate the development of their sound over time. Again, check out those other FAs: Most have only a couple of song samples at most. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as tightening up the wording, I highly recommend reading Tony's guide, particularly the sections on eliminating redundancy and achieving flow. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Since no else has done it, I went through and removed the "main article" links and most of the samples, moving the 3 highest-charting song samples into side players rather than inline (per the MoS, inline samples are only for things like pronunciations, not song samples). Someone really needs to thorough copyedit of the entire article, as there's a lot of redundant wording. For example:

• On November 17, 2010, Dave Mustaine officially announced in the Megadeth Cyber Army Chat Room that Megadeth would soon be recording their 13th album in Vic's Garage. "So, right now I have Ken Eisennagel, you may remember him from the last two records doing engineering for all of the pre-production phases of Megadeth records? Well, he is here [Megadeth’s studio - Vic's Garage] going over all of the new Megadeth stuff that I am working on... believe it or not we have five songs almost finished for the new Megs record already!"

This could/should simply say "Megadeth began recording their thirteenth album in November 2010, again with recording engineer Ken Eisennagel." You don't need to say that it was announced, or where, just say what was announced. Or heck, just trim the whole thing altogether: details like when they started recording should be in the album article itself, as they're not terribly pertinent to the band's overall history. If no one else gets moving on this, I may make a pass through it sometime in the coming weeks (I'm working on several other projects right now, but I thought I'd come back & see if any progress had been made here). --IllaZilla (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

After a very quick glance to me this article can be vastly edited down. Even the lead section to long and redundant. Only the first and last paragraphs are needed in the lead IMHO. Focus on editing and not on splitting. Ridernyc (talk) 22:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

A small example of what can easily be done "A revitalized Megadeth entered Rumbo Studios in March 1990 with co-producer Mike Clink to begin work on what would become their most critically acclaimed album to date, Rust In Peace. For the first time in their career, the band remained sober while working in the studio, alleviating many of the problems they'd had recording previous albums. Clink was also the first producer to successfully produce a Megadeth album from start to finish without being fired.[29]" can very easily become "Megadeth entered Rumbo Studios in March 1990 with co-producer Mike Clink to begin work on Rust In Peace. The band remained sober while working in the studio, alleviating many of the problems they'd had recording previous albums. Clink was also the first producer to successfully produce a Megadeth album from start to finish without being fired." When all the peacock words and fluff are removed from the entire article it will be much shorter. Ridernyc (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have added a number of tags to the article that deal with the problems with the article as discussed here. Ridernyc (talk) 00:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Also many of these issues were mentioned when the article was demoted and none of them have been dealt with in two years. The tags seem very appropriate in this case. Ridernyc (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the "fluff" words; the article should be comprehensible and non-biased towards any party. HOWEVER: It is notable that this was the first album that Megadeth completed whilst sober (according to your citation), and this is a relevant fact about the habits of the band. Styk0n (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Justification for removal of "Legacy" section?

Why was the legacy section removed. Such a large change should have been discussed here first, and I see no mention of that in the above discussion, rather than just done unilaterally.

Presuming that the goal is to re-attain FA status, other FA articles like those on Metallica and Slayer also have this section. However, I can't saw I find any fault with the removal of the awards infobox in that section.

My opinion, take it or leave it--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience

This amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience, Interests everyone who wants to know something about megadeth PERIOD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.81.184.126 (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the {{overly detailed}} tag. -- œ^™ 07:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Handevidt in first sentence?

I don't think Handevidt's contributions really warrant inclusion in the first sentence. It seems to me to give the member undue weight. Maybe there's a guideline that I haven't read yet but I think it would be more appropriate to sum up the article with their overall success and influence instead of their first lineup. Maybe "formed by longtime members Mustaine and Ellefson after Mustaine's temination from Metallica, then went on to become..." Any ideas? UselessToRemain (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Seconded; Handevidt wasn't to Megadeth what Mustaine was to Metallica. Mustaine actually wrote stuff for Metallica, so far as I am aware, none of Megadeth's early songs feature contributions from Handevidt. I do think it would just be the one sentence that should be re-written though. --L1A1 FAL (talk) 05:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality

“ The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved ”

- what is the status? Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 13:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm also curious about this. The note has been there a while and indicates there might be relevant discussion but I don't see any. What is disputed here? Maybe I can fix it. UselessToRemain (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the tag as nothing on this page supports the pov tag. Remember be bold! 86.171.33.78 (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Consistent vandalism, needs to be locked

Can we have this locked? I would do it myself but don't know how. Someone is always vandalising this article and it's always from an IP address. UselessToRemain (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2012 (UTC)