User talk:Bardin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thank You

Thank you for taking the time to improve the Folk Metal article. Genre articles on wikipedia are currently a huge mess nice to see someone put forth an effort to improve things. Ridernyc (talk) 20:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Metallum

Hey Bardin, I must thank you for improving the folk-related articles recently, they're looking great! but this is something I've understood for about 3-4 months+ now, those edits of mine are old and don't reflect the way I edit anymore. I am well aware that they're not professional reviews (some could be real-life reviewers) but like you, I use EM as a "viewable reference". I didn't have the force of will to remove them myself before but now I guess I have the drive to, so I'll remove all my old instances of them, starting with those. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 03:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Goth Goes Symphonic

The problem with this is not so much the Goth it's more the fact that many of the bands that are playing in said style are not Gothic in any way what so. I listed a few in the talk page.

I also pointed out that the reason bands such as Epica don't fall into Gothic Metal is that Influences don't come from bands such as Sisters of Mercy or really any other Goth Rock Bands. There Influences come from bands such as Death, Kamelot, Iced Earth, Opeth, Nightwish, Ayreon and Hans Zimmer and Danny Elfman. Though more Hans Zimmer then Danny Elfman. But any ways. Most of there influences are coming from other metal bands not Goth Rock bands. After all most of the Goth Rock bands I have heard are not using blast beats, double bass drums, and half the stuff that is found in Power Metal, Prog Metal, Black and Death Metal. So it's really hard to throw Nightwish, After Forever, and Epica into the same genre with bands such as Moonspell and Paradise Lost when there music falls more into the other four genres when that's where they are take all there influences from no matter if they want to come out and say so or not. --Turemetalfan (talk) 04:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

“ I am very surprised at how big it has become. They have rebadged it though, of course. It’s like breakfast cereal. Package it nice enough and anyone will buy it. The ones that have enormous popularity, like Evanescence, are an even newer breed. They have probably never heard of us, yet they are influenced by bands like Lacuna Coil, who were influenced by...us! But hey, if Nick [Holmes, vocalist] was as photogenic as Amy Lee [Evanescence vocalist], we would probably be multi platinum by now. ” — Gregor Mackintosh of Paradise Lost

Quote taken from this interview. I see no reason to impose a condition upon gothic metal bands that they have to be influenced by goth rock. The early gothic metal acts certainly were but as Gregor Mackintosh of Paradise Lost is able to recognize, subsequent goth metal acts need not be.

If you can find some reliable source about goth metal bands not using blast beats or double bass drums, please alert me to it. I would be able to use it in the article on the music characteristic section. Other than that, my response would be the same as that which I gave at the gothic metal article talk page so turn your attention there. --Bardin (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not say Goth Metal I said Goth Rock and I will point out that Evanescence has nothing to do with Gothic metal nor Goth Rock. They fall more into the Alternative rock/metal genre. There sound has nothing to do with Goth Rock. So I'm not going to take much from Gregor Mackintosh's interview. Yes Evanescence is big but to place them in with real Goth Rock band or real Gothic Metal band is a slap in the face to those bands.--98.224.211.86 (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are the same person as Turemetalfan, please be consistent and stick to either your login name or the IP address. The point of the Mackintosh quote was not about the genre of Evanescence. It's about debunking your idea that gothic metal bands need to have been influenced by goth rock bands. There's no reliable source that indicates it is necessary. As far as being a slap in the face to any band, I do not think you are in any position to speak for any "real" goth rock or gothic metal bands. I will suggest that you're taking this far too seriously and emotionally. Chill out and relax. The end of the world is not upon us.--Bardin (talk) 11:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not totally sure what you guys are arguing about but bands like "Nightwish, After Forever, and Epica" aren't gothic metal at all (as opposed to Moonspell and Paradise Lost). Those three bands are symphonic metal. I realize symphonic metal is an outgrowth of gothic metal but with more power metal influence, but Nightwish, After Forever, and Epica are symphonic metal and are in no way gothic metal. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Evanescence is certainly not gothic metal at all, either. But Bardin is right that gothic metal bands didn't have to be influenced by goth rock. I mean Lacuna Coil is weak...REALLY weak, but they are still gothic metal and they weren't infl. by goth rock as far as I know. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RE: Satyricon/ Medieval metal

I see your point. I will refrain from putting the Satyricon thing back into the mittelalter rock page. However, I know I'm right in what I was saying, but I don't know if I have time to go look for the source. Oh well, we'll see. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello

I think we can help each other. You seem knowledgeable about metal. I took a look at the gothic metal page and found it surprisingly accurate. I, too, work on many metal pages (bands, genres, list, etc.). If you ever need any help with an article or something let me know and I will take a look and give you an opinion, and will offer my help. All I ask is a similar favor. What do you say? I was also wondering if you'd help out with the viking metal page or not. It is related to folk metal after all. Thanks again. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. You already had planned to work on the viking metal page. Well, at least get back to me about the other things some time. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more than happy to help out with the viking metal article. As you've noticed, I already have plans to work on it at some time in the future. I'm currently working on improving the folk metal article further on my personal sandbox. Don't let my professed intention stop you from contributing to the viking metal article though. I do not know when I'll turn my attention to it since the article is not as bad as many other heavy metal subgenre article like symphonic metal. If you can improve the viking metal article to a quality such that I do not need to work on it myself, that would be great since I can then devote my attention elsewhere. --Bardin (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, and thanks for replying. I'm saddened you voted keep on the heavy metal fashion article, but you're right that many metal articles are a mess and need improving. I'm sure we will get a chance to work together. You never said if you accepted my terms or not, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what terms you're referring to? You help me, I help you? Sounds completely ordinary to me. --Bardin (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

All right then, agreed. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Medieval music

After your work on the medieval rock article I'm questioning the existence of this genre (Neo-Medieval music), it seems to take medieval and renaissance music similar to medieval rock/metal but I think it's more related to rock than it is to metal. At first there was a problem of classification between the two so maybe you can clear things up. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 21:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I have no idea what to make of that genre. The neo-medieval music article here on wikipedia is simply full of original research with no reference or citation provided. It looked more like a fan essay than anything else. Of course, many other music genre articles come across as fan essays so I don't think that means anything in itself. I get the impression from the neo-medieval music article that the term is just a short hand expression for any artist of any genre of music who dabble in some way with medieval music rather that a real music genre with definite boundaries. I noticed though that every single artist mentioned on that article can also be described with some other term be it the prog-rock of Jethro Tull, the world music of Hedningarna, the gothic music of Qntal or the folk metal of Lumsk. Personally, I would think neo-medieval is best used to describe groups like the Mediæval Bæbes and Omnia, yet neither are mentioned in the article. I tag both artists in my collection as medieval along with Corvus Corax and some more authentic medieval music by classical labels like Naxos Records. I do not use the prefix neo- though. That's my own personal preference though. Quite irrelevant here, of course. A quick google search on neo-medieval music did not helped illuminate the term any further to me. I see online pages describing such minimalist composers as Arvo Pärt as neo-medieval. So it seems to me that the term is loosely defined and broad. On the other hand, medieval rock/metal is a clearly defined and narrow music subgenre/scene. I suppose every medieval rock/metal band can be described as neo-medieval for obvious reason but clearly not everything described as neo-medieval would fit into the medieval rock/metal subgenre/scene. --Bardin (talk) 03:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean, the genre is broad and doesn't clearly define itself. So what do we say of it? do we keep the article a confused mess and simply call it a modernized genre or "post" genre of medieval music (like neo-psychedelia is to psychedelic rock)? or try to help differentiate it from medieval rock/metal and original medieval music? or even delete it for lack of definition (like dark metal) and merge some of it into medieval music and have a modern/neo medieval music section. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose unless you can find some reliable sources that set up boundaries for what neo-medieval music is, then a deletion and redirect into the medieval music article might be the only appropriate action. You might want to bring it up on the talk page for the respective articles though.--Bardin (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish Plays Power Metal not Gothic metal

There are many reviews sites and other sites that state them as Power Metal not Gothic Metal. You are listing them as part of a genre they are not a long with a number of other bands. In other words you are throwing out the fact that nothing in Nightwishs music makes them Gothic Metal. One Songs is not enough to make a band Gothic. One CD is not enough to make them Gothic. --98.224.211.86 (talk) 20:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Blocked user / User:Turemetalfan

See my reply on my talk page. ... discospinster _talk 18:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

See my reply on my talk page. ... discospinster _talk 02:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very good compromise. ... discospinster _talk 14:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Eagles

Please accept this invitation to join the Eagles WikiProject (the band), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with the The Eagles. Simply click here to accept!

Basketball110 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Folk Metal

I just wanted to drop you a line and tell you that I've definitely noticed all the work you've put into the List of Folk Metal bands article and you've done a spectacular job. Thanks, and keep up the good work! JRDarby (talk) 21:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Just saw your big edit to folk metal. Wow. Yes, you can have your kudos now. Seriously, great to see so much added (and referenced :)). Telsa (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Woah, reading the article through alone was both informative (I keep learning new things even though I thought I knew enough about the matter) and entertaining, which is the hallmark of an excellent article. I admire the amount of work you put into Folk metal and Gothic metal. Those articles deserve GA nominations at the very least now.

Hey, you can link Celtic metal on your user page now (was about to do it myself but realised you might mind other users editing your personal page). You know, when I realised that "Bardin" means "female bard" in German, I wondered for a moment if you were female. :)

As for further (small) improvements, there are some I thought of but I am shy to make non-minor edits to the article now.

It might be clarified that Mittelalter rock and Folk metal have converged but were originally very different, coming from totally different backgrounds.

It might be worthy of mention that Leaves' Eyes have based an album on the Vinland matter, which is rather Norse history than mythology, and not only occasionally done songs in Norwegian ("Lyset", "Mot Fjerne Land", "Ankomst"), but also one ("Amhrán") in an imaginary language drawing on Old Irish, Old English and Old Norse vocabulary (Liv Kristine, who has studied linguistics and historical linguistics, stated she originally wanted the song to be in Old Irish, but couldn't find anyone who could teach her the language - my source is a TV interview in German, but it shouldn't be too difficult to locate written sources).

The 3rd and the Mortal are only mentioned in passing both in Folk metal and in Gothic metal, aren't they pioneers? Also, I missed Ulver, they inspired Empyrium, for example. Do you think Haggard belong here? (Probably not, since they are influenced by early music, not folk music.) Otyg have made use of female vocals, too, Cia Hedmark is even listed as a permanent member. How come Bathory and Viking metal are barely mentioned?

But otherwise, superb article. I wasn't even familiar with the cite template before. Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the feedback. I wasn't aware that Bardin means female bard in German. And here, I thought I had coined a term. Oh well.

I'll try to keep my response short. The reason why Ulver, Haggard and The 3rd and the Mortal are not mentioned in the article is because I was not able to find any reliable sources that were relevant enough for me to use. The closest I could find for Ulver was an Allmusic.com review for their first album but the review indicates the acoustic folk music and black metal were kept separated rather than mixed. Since I do not remember the music on the album myself, I'll have to assume that the reviewer is correct. The closest I could find for The 3rd and the Mortal is their entry on rockdetector but that entry states that they only added folk music after their first few releases. I do not know how many "few" is so I have to leave them be. The closest I could find for Haggard was a review on Chroniclesofchaos.com that describes them as including folk along with many other things in their eclectic mix. It was only mentioned in passing though so I do not feel that it's enough for Haggard to be mentioned in this article. I was always under the impression that theirs is more of a Baroque classical thing rather than folk. More relevant for the symphonic metal article than this.

The reason why I took out Bathory and minimized mention of viking metal is because during my online search on all things folk metal, I found that the relationship between the two are not as strong as I once thought. They might share the same audience to a large degree but I couldn't find anything to indicate that significance of viking metal on folk metal is a lot more than say, the signifiance of black metal or power metal. Some bands in the genre are of course influenced by Bathory but I do not think those bands are anywhere near the majority. Most of the folk metal bands on the lighter side have nothing to do with Bathory. I did considered mentioning Bathory and Ulver as precursors to the genre along the line that I did for Celtic Frost and others in gothic metal. I decided against it though because it just seemed rather odd to describe them as precursors when the first metal band Skyclad came at the same time or even earlier in the case of Ulver.

I am under the impression that mittelalter rock is pretty big in Germany, maybe even on a mainstream level. Sadly, most of the stuff on the internet are all in German and not being a German reader, I'm not able to use them. The only thing I could find in English on the origins of mittelalter rock is that on Rockdetector.com where Skyclad is attributed as the direct source. Who am I to argue with Garry Sharpe-Young?

I wasn't aware that Otyg has a female vocalist. The stuff on Leaves Eyes could be mentioned in the passage on languages if a source can be found. Thanks for the compliment but don't take this article as a finished product. There's always room for improvement and more information so if you have any to contribute, by all means do so. --Bardin (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Symphonic metal

Since you have already tackled Symphonic metal on the Gothic metal article (I'm so glad that we have finally a properly sourced metal genre article, THANK YOU for your effort!), are you planning to rewrite Symphonic metal as well? Just wondering. Florian Blaschke (talk) 05:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is within my general intention to improve the symphonic metal article but I do not know when I will get around to it. My tentative plan right now is to work over the gothic metal article some more and improve it to the same high standards that I did with the folk metal article. --Bardin (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the discussion on Talk:List of gothic metal bands:

Sorry for this mess; I understand your frustration. Please do not get the impression that your diligent, hard work is not being appreciated. I really like symphonic metal (female-fronted or not) as well as beauty-and-the-beast gothic metal and while I don't care much for Evanescence (in fact I used to like them years ago but now I find the vocals rather annoying, to say nothing of the music), I don't downright hate them either, though I cannot say I'm overly happy about the influence the female-fronted metal genre draws from them or newer Within Temptation lately. I just feel strongly that music that does not conform to the most basic conventions of metal should not be called that, and same with gothic metal - a feeling that has only grown the more I have become involved with the genre. I guess you just tend to grow a little elitist and purist when you start to deal with the music more deeply and you start to develop and nurture strong opinions and convictions, for example about genres and how bands should be classified.

Personally, I generally choose to not get caught up with such genre debates when they're about real subtleties. Still, I'd prefer to see Evanescence classified as Alternative rock, Pop rock, Piano rock, Dark rock (perhaps also the so-called Alternative metal) as much as your typical metalhead, but I do understand that if I can't find reliable sources for that, tough luck, and I'll have to put back my missionary zeal. You'll notice that I haven't changed any actual article to reflect my opinion of the optimal classification but still I reserve the right to speak my mind on talk pages when I feel like it; no need to take it personally. Florian Blaschke (talk) 03:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've simmered down. No hard feelings in any case. I tried my best to indicate that Evanescence is not a gothic metal despite being on both the list and article with the sources that I found. If you think you can improve it any further, by all means do so. --Bardin (talk) 04:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply to question about WP:FAIR violation

If the image fair-use rationale was altered/written in a way to purposely break the WP:FAIR policy that would be akin to vandalism. By WP:FAIR album covers are only fair-use in the article about the source of the album itself. They cannot be used anywhere else. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where you're getting that idea from. My guide in working on the folk metal article was the featured article Heavy metal music. There's not one but three album covers on that article - an album by Slayer that's captioned as a "landmark thrash metal album," an EP by Burzum that depicts "the burned ruins of Fantoft stave church" and finally an album by Sunn O))) that's simply captioned as their debut album. Now this is a featured article. The first two photos were in the article when it received its featured article status. I pretty much copied the fair use rationale used for those two albums onto the Skyclad album, merely changing the last point to mention its relevance to the folk metal article. The album is not merely mentioned in passing but discussed at relative length in the article. There's a quote from allmusic.com describing the album as groundbreaking and ambitious. There's another quote from rockdetector.com describing a track from that debut album as particularly significant. A sample of that track is provided in the article. The relevance of that album - and its album cover - is far more significant than the album covers from Slayer and Burzum on the heavy metal music article. I believe I've covered my base with the fair use rationale and I do not see where you get this notion that album covers are only fair use in articles about the album itself. That has not and has never been the case as far as I know. Just take a look at other articles on music genres: both grunge music and punk rock music are featured articles with album covers on them. --Bardin (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The album cover in the grunge article has no fair-use rationale at all and should be removed. That article also contains a magazine cover which is also a fair-use violation as it is truly only fair-use in the article about Time Magazine. The user who added the cover and false fair-use rationale to the Ramones cover on the punk page is none other than DCGeist.. go figure! who is the user who owns the heavy metal page. (WP:OWN is a bad thing). I am on MSN with a couple of admins right now. I will ask one of them to look into the WP:FAIR vios on those other articles that you mentioned. The rules have always been pretty cut and dried. Albums covers are only fair-use in the page about the album the cover was taken from. Similarly magazine/book covers are governed by the same rule. Also note that screenshots are only fair-use in the article directly related to the source of the screenshot. User:Moeron is an expert on Wiki's fair-use policy. I would direct you to ask assistance from him but I believe he is on hiatus. Ff you want a clear explanation of WP:FAIR you can question the fair-use policy page for help. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read through WP:FAIR and I see nothing there that rules out the use of album covers on music genre articles. The policy indicates that non-free content can be used if and only if "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I have to say that I lean towards the idea that the presence of an album cover in a passage of a music genre article that specifically and explicitly discuss the album cover would "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." It does seem a bit of a subjective thing but I reckon that if the Slayer and Burzum album covers could make it on a featured article without being struck down, then the Skyclad album - more significant to folk metal than Slayer or Burzum to heavy metal music - should be fine too.

I will admit that I'm still fairly new to wikipedia. I do not want to get on anyone's bad side. I certainly do not want to violate wiki policy. But as it is right now, I do not know whether you are right or not. You speak with authority but without a user page, I do not know whether you are an admin or whether your contributions have been worthy of barnstars or what. I took my guide from the heavy metal article because it's a featured article. I do not know if DCGeist owns that article or not because I haven't been watching the list of who contributed what to that article. All I know is that when the article was screened for a featured article status, it passed with those two album covers there. So I'd like to request that you do me a favor and remove those album covers from the heavy metal music article first before targetting the little known small pond I've been working on. Not to imply ownership or anything like that. Just that if you can clear up this issue over at those featured articles first, I will be sure to follow suit on the folk metal page and pretty much any other article I work on in the future. --Bardin (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Heck, just to throw it out in the air, other featured articles that use album covers include Genesis, Motörhead, Metallica, Tool, Audioslave, John Mayer, Sly & the Family Stone, The Supremes, Bob Dylan, Mandy Moore, The KLF and I can only imagine plenty more. So you really got your work cut out for you if all these featured articles are violating Wiki: Fair Use. Needless to say, there are plenty more articles that use album covers too without being a featured article. --Bardin (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I used to have an account (over 20000 edits with it) But half of my edit count was vandalism warning on IP talk pages. At the same time I noticed a growing anti-anon trend which, I felt, went against Wiki's "anyone can edit" philosophy. So I decided at least one IP range was going to contribute regularly and positively... my own. I abandoned my account for the 'purity' of anonymous editing and have never looked back. Over 30000 IP edits later and no regrets. Accounts are fine if you want to be an admin. But I rejected 15 prompts to let my username stand for RfA. I've always just wanted to edit. And you don't need an account to do that. Along the way many of my admin friends took to calling me "Libs" I am a librarian, go figure :D I am currently away from my desk. When I am at mt desk my IP is static. (with a user page and everything... wow!) You can view my IP Userpage here User:156.34.142.110.(it'll answer you question about the barnstars) No matter which IP I happen to get stuck with in my travels I always check back at that static IP for my messages. Lots of people come to me for help and advice. Feel free to do the same. And you can call me Libs... everyone else does. As for MR. Geist's pics. He is a vet editor who knows how to play the system and shade the rules. He has several images(with fair-use rationale) in places where they are actually in violation of the image policy. I do not battle with Mr. Geist and his WP:OWN issues. he just isn't worth the time. Wiki's image use and the WP:FAIR policy is a constant battle ground with every editor having their own interpretation on it. I won't pretend to be an expert. I just edit the same way I always have for 4 years. I am rarely called into question for my edits. So I take that as a "doing good... just keep movin'" vote of confidence. There are several admins who are a much better judge than I. Best to seek them out for guidance. In the meantime... the Folk metal article is pretty good. If it is your handiwork then congrads on buiolding an article that must be hard to find citations for. Have a nice day! 156.34.222.121 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but the wiki policy concerning albums covers seems a little too escessive. Everyone knows that the record companies and the artists themselves dont mind if their covers are used. Its not like we're stealing the layout or selling counterfeit cds with the covers, we are simply using them to describe the people who made them. We would have to have some sort of monetary gain for there to be a problem. Grk1011 (talk) 15:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

One thing I have seen is... over in the Wiki-Jazz world.... some of the cover uploads there are huge... absolutely huge. There is nothing fair-use about that... the images are big enough and have enough pixel density to be used for prints. And that certainly isn't fair-use. I spoke to an admin yesterday about how Wiki has a new email hotline for artists and their management to legally submit their images for Wiki use. It's been a long time coming for that. And I apologise for not noticing the cover in the Mo_head page. I am a member of that project and it was my good admin friends Wiki alf and Bubba Hotep who built that page to FA status. So it makes me a hypocrite to complain about fair-use when my own projects flagship page uses WP:FAIR vios. :D. Wiki wasn't built in a day. I have been here 4 years. And I think that 10 years from now... we will still be discussing this subject. sigh :D. Have a nice day and good luck editing. 156.34.222.121 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for being so nice and understanding, Libs. I noticed you have some barnstars but so does DCGeist, apparently. So that's not much of a help for me. I'll wait till I get more response from the wiki policy talk page before making my mind up. --Bardin (talk) 08:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Folk metal

You get kudos from me on a job well done. Now that you explained some things to me (to which I responded on the Viking metal talk page) I appreciate what you've done more. However, I cannot understand some things you have done on the folk metal article. What is the reason for making the size of the pictures so large? I'm a little upset, too, at another thing. I'm definitely amazed at how you have increased the size of the article on folk metal and all the extra info you put in, but I don't understand some of the info you took out. Such as the stuff about Viking metal. The two genres are closely related and before there was mentions of Viking metal in the folk metal article, but now there is no mention of Viking metal or indeed, even Bathory, at all. Perhaps I may add some things in, and I hope you don't mind. You seem to be a very good editor and I respect what you are doing. I consider myself a damn good editor as well, but I certainly don't usually add as much info as you are able to on articles. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I didn't make the pictures large at all so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Another editor actually resized all the pictures to thumb size so they really should appear quite small on your screen as they do on mine. Perhaps the problem is with your desktop or browser's settings? There's still a small bit about viking metal in the article. I only took out the stuff on Bathory and the related style section. I could not really find much supporting evidence that Bathory has exercised a great deal of influence on the genre. The only stuff I could find was that they have been an influence on folk metal bands that are also known as viking metal. There are many folk metal bands, particularly on the lighter side of the equation, that does not have anything to do with Bathory. Bands like Mago de Oz, Elvenking, Tuatha de Danann, etc. Crediting Bathory as an influence on the genre as a whole is therefore misleading. They are an influence on viking metal bands including those that perform folk metal but they are not really an influence on folk metal itself. The other problem is that while Bathory isn't a folk metal band, I cannot support a negative assertion with references. So discussing Bathory in the article might mislead readers to think that Bathory is a folk metal band when there's no supporting references that they are. You can always add stuff in as long as there are references to support any statement. I do think that its best for Bathory to be discussed at length in the viking metal article rather than the folk metal one though.--Bardin (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you're saying. I may add something about Bathory back in, but if I do, I will word it carefully and make sure the reader knows they are not folk metal and I will provide references. That is if I find they influenced folk metal as a whole. We'll see. But I do think their should be a related style section or something about Viking metal. I mean, don't you agree that the two genres are highly related? They both borrow a lot from each other and there are many bands that are both. They certainly both emphasize similar things, such as an epic sound and lyrics about simiplar topics among other things. Not to mention anyone who likes one genre likes the other (probabaly based on the similarities). I'm not saying it should be a big section, but a small one mentioning similarities and how many bands are both, etc. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I found the previous version of the article rather odd with Bathory - a non-folk metal band - being mentioned right after Skyclad - a folk metal band. A separate section for a related style might be more appropriate but I'm still hesitant. Take a look at the list of folk metal bands. There's quite a lot of bands there but I think only a minority of them have been influenced by Bathory. --Bardin (talk) 00:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point. Well if they get a mention it will be in a different section then. I still have to get around to finding some sources. The pictures in the folk metal article still appear abnormally large and I'm not sure why. I see that it says thumb in their format, so I have no idea what's going on. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Why did you remove those quotes? I kinda liked them. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because of the concerns raised in the peer review of the article. If you disagree with the concerns raised, feel free to bring it up there. --Bardin (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough

{{hide|bg1=#C4C3D0|header=Old stuff |content= I'm ok with your attempt to start all over again. This is a wise decision. I'll be more careful to restrain myself to hurt you unvonluntary. Once again sorry if I did. I really didn't mean it. May I also ask you to restrain yourself from making (what I take as) sarcasm or offending personal appreciations on me. Thanks in advance. Oh, btw if you have time may I ask you to take a look to the Neo-classical metal article. This one is full of Original research and it suffers of a severe lack of sources. I've just removed certain parts from me including unreliable sources (metalarchives that is). Thanks in advance.Take care. Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Mittelalter Rock

First I am not a big fan of Ougenweide. But maybe you are a big fan of Skyclad. I am from Germany and am not a major expert of Mittelalter rock but as a Mittelalter fan I have same knowledge of the de:Mittelalterszene and I know that nearly noone in Germany recognize Skyclad as a bigger influence on Mittelalter Rock than for example Corvus Corax. And please why are the sources you use are more reliable than the one I added. In the actuel version of the Mittelalter rock it seems as if Skyclade was THE big influence of German Mittelalter rock - that is not true - I would even say thats nonsense - it was one of many influences (of which I have only little heard - even as a big Mittelalter rock fan) - and so it has to be shown in the article - I only added Ougenweide to make this point more clear, but I even thought that in my version the influence fo Skyclad was still disproportionate. And a metal community based in England or at least outside Germany like Metalstorm.ee is definitly also not a neutral/reliable source - its often a fact that such communitys overrate the importance of a band of their own spahre, which could for sure also be true for Ougenweide in the German area. Ougenweide is mentioned in the German, Italian and Frence wikipedia - (but maybe a German added this to the Italian and Frence wikipdeia- i don't know- but it was not me- because I don't speak that languages). And by the way Skyclad is called in wikipedia the originator of folk metal (which I also mistrust in - I am very sure that there was no single band, but there were many steps toward such a music style - and if you you read the source for Ougenweide it is even possible, that they had influence on the developmetn of folk metal much earlier than Skyclade) - so it would be enough to have a link to folk metal - if you read some of the articles it is obviously that there was a big Skyclad fan on work. I will not change it now, but I will not let the actell versiion stand like it is for long- at least I will cut the Skyclade part to a single sentence, if there is nothing else added. And that your sources not they "mostly" German only shows that the sources you have used are also no scientific work on Mittelalter Rock. I don't need a source to know that Mittelalter rock is at least also present (even maybe to a lower level) in Austria and Switzerland and also a littel in the Czech Republic- and Yes - it is important for Austrians not to be classifed as Germans. Have a nice day. Knarf-bz (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to take a look at wikipedia's policy on verifiability and original research as well as the guideline on reliable sources but your response indicate to me that you either have not read them or you do not care to abide by wiki policy. You might not think you need a source to know things but we need a source for anything to be claimed on wikipedia. You have not provided any source that says Mittelalter rock is also present in Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic while a source I provided describes the genre as a German phenomenon without using the word mostly. You might very well be right that the genre is also present in those other countries but we cannot rely on the personal knowledge of an anonymous fan. We can only rely on reliable sources. One is also provided on Skyclad's connection with Mittelalter rock. Not metalstorm.ee as you erroneously said but rockdetector.com. You have not provided any reliable source on Ougenweide's connection with Mittelalter rock. Now you want to claim further that Ougeweide has some influence on the development of folk metal even earlier than Skyclad. I'm sorry to say this but as the person who spent many days working on the folk metal article, that claim is plainly absurd. Ougenweide was not even a metal band but a prog rock band. Again, you have no references to support any of your claims while there are not one but multiple references pinpointing Skyclad as the originator of folk metal. There is not a single use of the word metal or the term medieval rock in the progarchives link you provided as a source for Ougenweide. No mention either of Subway to Sally, In Extremo or any of the mittelalter rock bands. As for the German wikipedia entry on Mittelalterszene, that article is completely unreferenced with no sources whatsoever. Interestingly enough though, Ougenweide is not even mentioned there. --Bardin (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

O.k. - I don't want to have an edit war with you. So let the page Mittelalter Rock like it is. I know that Mittelalter rock is also present in Austria, because of my experiences in Austria but yes I did not found a reliable source on my short google search and I don't have the time and notion to make a scientific search. But to support your point of view I found a webpage of a band from Switzerland, which claims to be the only Swiss -mittelalter rock band (Koenings Halunken)- so maybe you are right about Switzerland - even as the Mittelalterszene definitly includes people of all German-language areas. - As I know - I did not claim that Ougenweide had influence on folk metal (I speculated to make my point clear , well knowing hat speculation is no source) - but you didn't get it - maybe- because my English is not good enough (possible, because it is not my native language) or you simple didn't wanted. - metal storm is still a used source in the Mittelalter rock article and in my opionen it is not a reliable source according to your guidlines, so it should also be deleted. And why do you think that Rockdetector is a reliable source - even the wikipedia article of rockdetector says that the "facts" theire are mainly based on "first-hand interviews" with bands - well in German interviews Ougenweide also claims origin in Mittelalter rock - only because a journalist made a complex webside based on his long year experiences and interviews. Did he speak German to? Did he made a big reseache in Germany and interviewed the bands, what their influences where? - But I don't want discuss - I can only ask you to neutralisize the part about Skyclad in the Mittelalter-Rock ariticle. (After all Skyclad is not a Mitteralter rock band - so you could shorten that part if you wanted - because a link to Skyclad would exist and their you could read the history of the band and don't need that history in the Mittelalter rock article-one suggeston: "The development of Mittelalter rock got early inspiration amoung others of the English band Skyclad, which is constantly seen as the first real folk metal band and the East German band Corvus Corax, which has its rootes in the Mittelalterszene, which started to develop in the 70s" - I don't think that the involment of violins and so one is necessary for this article), which startet to develop) - But for sure - if you think that must be -than let it be, but for me it sounds strange that a article which says that Mittelalter rock is a German phenomenon describes the history of the origin of folk metal. Knarf-bz (talk) 06:30, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I had already intended to made some alterations to the article, quite frankly. Compare the references used in the folk metal article and the ones used in the mittelalter rock article. The format is different. That's one of the things that I wanted to change. As for metalstorm, I do agree that it is not a reliable source since most of the info there are derived from anonymous users. However, neither the Skyclad bio nor the In Extremo bio are written by anonymous fans but rather derived from elsewhere. The In Extremo bio is actually copied from the band's official website. I'm not sure why I used the metalstorm entry instead of the official website. The Skyclad bio was sourced from an interview with two members of the band. Note however that this has nothing to do with the claim that Skyclad inspired mittelalter rock. That's the claim of Garry Sharpe-Young at rockdetector.com. There's nothing wrong with first hand interviews as far as I know. If you are aware of any online German interviews relating Ougenweide to mittelalter rock, by all means bring them to my attention. I'll have to rely on some online translation to look at them but if the source is reliable, then it can certainly be used on the article. I'll changed the entry on Skyclad as per your request. Incidentally, there's no article on the english wikipedia on Ougenweide so perhaps you might want to create one. Just a suggestion. --Bardin (talk) 07:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive discussion. Well - I see a little bit a problem with first hand interviews - when the importance of band is based on their own declaration. To make a unrelated but comparable example: The Dresden christmas market has claimed for a long time to be the oldest Christmas Market, original sources tell a diferent story (other Citys did the same as early) - but over years the claim was copied again an again - and now they come and say - "Look, this sources and that sources (all second hand sources) also claim that the market is the oldest- so it is described even today very often as the oldest: So it could be with Skyclad too (only my speculation, nothing to add to the wikipedia:)) Skyclade told some honorable interviewers - "We even influenced the German Mittelalter Rock" and the interview made out of this - "The origin of German Mittelalter rock was in fact (our English) band skyclade- than this is copied again and again - on websites which are maybe serios and later this websites are used as sources for the claim of the band. And maybe even if people from Germany, who enjoy Mittelalter Rock and are interested in this topic have never heared of this influence. -- Well it is enough now ;-) - So here is a online interview with Ougenweide [1], where the interviewer for example says in the first sentence: "It is undeniable, that you have been the pioneers of Mittelalterrock..." and than their is something about the developments of Mittelalter Rock - they even start with the Beatles and so one ;-). - I see no reason why minnesang.com should be less reliable than rockdetector.com -- I don't know if I am the best person to creat a site about Ougenweide, because I have some weakening in English writing (I understand much better than I actuelly write ;-)) - but maybe I should start the article and some native speaker can correct the mistakes) - Knarf-bz (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course, there are dishonest people around who would gladly take credit for just about anything but that does not mean that every first hand interview is therefore unreliable. There's no evidence whatsoever that Garry Sharpe-Young merely parrots on his website whatever it is the interviewees tell him. He's an experienced journalist and an author of many books so let's give him a little credit. I realize you're just making a hypothetical example but it's not very nice to suggest that it was Skyclad and not Garry Sharpe Young who made the claim that Skyclad inspired mittelalter rock.

As for the source you provided, that is a reliable source so you really should have used it instead of the progarchives page. Not only have I changed the mittelalter rock article to reflect the source you provided but I have also created a stub page for the band: Ougenweide. There's not much in that interview that I can use other than to reference a short sentence about the band being a pioneer of the genre though. I'm sure you'll agree that one sentence is too short and there should be more information about the band. Since I know absolutely nothing about the band, I hope you can help provide me with more references if not contribute to the article yourself. I'll accept all the help I can get to expand the article so if you know of any other german source be it interview or review that can help elaborate more info on not just Ougenweide but also Corvus Corax, Subway to Sally and the other acts, that would be great too. --Bardin (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well after some internet research I have to admit, that now all the music genres are confusing to me. Everyone seems to call the music by different names. I for example in the moment like Helium Vola very much (if you want to listen to them try youtube Helium Vola - Selig) - I always thought of them als Electronic-Mittelalter - but now I found some internet sites, which called them Darkwave. ?? So maybe it is better I do not add to much on this topic in wikipedia, because I am kind of uncertain, what fits to which genre.Knarf-bz (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't leave disparaging remarks such as the one you did over at Years in Waste. That user had more than adequate chance to expand the contribution. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. One minute is adequate chance to expand an article before it is tagged for CSD? That is a ridiculously hasty CSD and I make no apologies for remarking it as such. The person who tagged it as CSD has just apologised and rightly so. A little over an hour after the creation of that article, you made the redirect. The user was still trying to improve the article during this hour. You can that hour an adequate chance to expand the article? I call it as I see it. That too was a ridiculously hasty redirect. It's very easy and convenient to just redirect a poorly written article but all you needed to do was spent a few minutes as I did to correct the formatting, add the proper tags (stub and expand) and improve it otherwise. That user is clearly a newbie who had little idea what he or she was doing. The behavior of the CSD tagger and yourself have probably scared off that user from ever contributing again to wikipedia. Go take a look at WP:Bite. --Bardin (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not kidding you and I would appreciate it if you didn't leave nasty messages in the edit summary. I have expanded more of these little, contentless stubs than I can count. It is, as I stated, up to the original poster to do something beyond a track listing, as was the case here. In all the years I have contributed to this site under two usernames, never once have I added empty content. Every new article of mine has been a real, live article or stub right out of the chute. I made my fair share of mistakes starting out and was called on it. I learned from the mistakes. There has been a lot of talk here regarding quality over quantity. I believe in quality and my edit history backs that up. I have also mentored new users and problem users; I am well aware of the "not biting newbies" clause. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, bravo and congratulations for only ever creating real, live articles or stubs. Hurrah. Am I supposed to be impressed? We're not talking about you. We're talking about a contributor who is clearly and evidently new to wikipedia. Another editor came along and bite that newbie with a CSD tag within one minute of the article being created. You then came along and redirected that article in just an hour after that the article was created. Both actions were extremely hasty and hence, ridiculous. You say that you are well aware of WP:Bite but your actions indicate otherwise. I suggest that you get off your high horse and take a moment to reflect on how your abrupt and impolite behavior can come across to someone who is completely new to wikipedia. If you do not like to receive what you perceive as nasty remarks, then I suggest you think twice before committing any further ridiculous actions. I was able to do in just a few minutes what you should have done and that was to help the newbie improve the perfectly legitimate article with the proper formatting and tags instead of scaring away the newbie with redirects and warnings. --Bardin (talk) 07:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you do some reading yourself: WP:CIVIL. I would further suggest you review WP:BITE yourself. If you wish to disagree with me, feel free to. I don't wish to engage you in a fight and you're free to revert any edit of mine you feel is inappropriate. If you wish to leave me a message on my talk page or in the edit summary, make sure it's within the rules. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Per the instructions, I'm requesting assistance in this matter at the Wikiquette alert noticeboard. I have no beef with you and I wish to keep it that way. Firing off nasty notes to one another on this talk page doesn't do any of us any good and I'd like for it to stop. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You say you do not wish to engage in a fight with me and yet on the other hand you're reporting me on the wikiquette alert noticeboard. How ironic. I've issued a lengthy response there. --Bardin (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I happened to notice that. My friend, the last thing I wish to do with my time is to engage in a cybernetic pissing contest with you. The notice was intended to try and mediate this situation. You've blown this up to proportions the likes of which I've never seen. As I stated, feel free to revert any edits of mine you feel are inappropriate and leave a reasonable, rational edit summary. That's all. Please, let's just drop this. I don't mind being humble when humility is called for, but not when faced with the sort of abuse I've had to endure from you over this trivial matter. I consider the matter closed and I hope you'll do the same. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I was neither the one who brought this up in the first place nor was I the one who dragged it out. I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Bardin (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's gracious of you. Thank you very much. I hope we'll meet under less strenuous circumstances next time around. Best, --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For reference: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts/archive43#User:Bardin --Bardin (talk) 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Vacation woes

I apologise for any problems I may have caused over the last few days. I have been on vacation, suffering from jet-lag and personal issues, which have seriously affected my editing of the encyclopaedia - clearly I have came off as being somewhat irate and violating WP:BITE. I can do nothing but to apologise to all affected users and give my most sincere apologies. I did not realise what I had done until it was brought to my attention, and I thank the persons responsible for doing so.

I realise that my admin ambitions may be somewhat tarnished by this problem, but I ask anyone reading this to judge me on my edits before I went on vacation, and not during. Once again, sorry for generally being annoying and violating WP:BITE. asenine ^t/_c 01:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Rockdetector

Hi,

Since you seem to prefer Rockdetector over Encyclopaedia Metallum, I decided to give you some insight on how Rockdetector collects their information.

Rockdetector claims that any information found in their website is a direct result of their research, even saying that "Except where a source is specifically accredited all software, design, text, images, illustrations, photographs, illustrations, artwork, graphic material, and any other copyrightable material(...) are the property of Musicdetector Websites and /or its subsidiaries and / or affiliates." and "Reproduction of any material from this web site is prohibited." Contrary to their rhetoric, Rockdetector actually uses lots of information that is published on Encyclopaedia Metallum and try to pass it as their own.

I first became aware of that situation during 2005, after some users posted in the EM forum saying that Rockdetector was adding bands that were first added to Metal Archives. I'll give you one example. In October 20th, 2004, I added the finnish band Monstrosity to EM. I took all the info about them, including the logo, from an old finnish zine. I even scanned the article and added a link to it, but unfortunately my image server deleted it. In October 21st, Rockdetector added Monstrosity to their database. I found out that they were systematically doing that with bands added to MA. Thousands of bands that can be found in Rockdetector were taken straight from MA. Normally I wouldn't have a problem with that, but Rockdetector's low ethics - trying to pass information collected by others as their own, while saying that everything on their site is copyrighted - made me look down on Rockdetector.

As a final note, you gotta agree that even Rockdetector believes that Encyclopaedia Metallum is a notable and authorative source of information. Evenfiel (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I really appreciate it. I'm not a big fan of Rockdetector or any other site in particular. I just use whatever reliable source I can find. Wikipedia policy indicates that Rockdetector is reliable enough while Encyclopaedia Metallum is not. Hence, I use Rockdetector as a source and not Encyclopaedia Metallum. It's not a personal preference on my part. As for this issue that you've brought up, I'll agree that it does not reflect well on Rockdetector.com but there are a couple of things that should be pointed out.

Firstly, neither you nor I are reliable sources so while we can speculate that Rockdetector plagiarise, our personal views cannot be used here on wikipedia as reliable sources. Secondly, this might just be the case of one employed staff member on the site taking the easy way out to the ignorance of the others working on the site. The manner in which the staff members gets their information does not really affect the credibility of the site as a reliable source because of two things: all contributions are from paid employed staff members who are publicly identified with their real names and there is an editorial oversight to verify any information as accurate. In contrast to this, Encyclopaedia Metallum relies on anonymous contributions from anyone who can join their site. So hypothetically, that same individual on Rockdetector.com might be ripping information from Encyclopaedia Metallum on other bands but the editorial oversight is there to ensure that only accurate information would continue to be featured on their site. This does not mean that Rockdetector believes that Encyclopaedia Metallum is notable or authoritative. It simply means that at least one individual there has taken the easy way out and ripped off information that is accurate. For all we know, that individual might have ripped off inaccurate information regarding other bands only to be shot down by the editorial oversight. For every entries that are similar, there are plenty more that are very dissimilar, especially for high profile acts.

I'm not trying to defend Rockdetector here. Just trying to explain why they would still be considered a reliable source even if your allegation is correct (and I think it is). I am fully aware that some information on their site is factually incorrect: the band Skyclad is described as forming in 1991 when other sources (including Allmusic, Encyclopaedia Metallum and others) pinpoints it to 1990. So that's an instance where I chose not to use or reference Rockdetector as a source for that info because other reliable sources contradict it. Even Allmusic makes similar mistakes. I've seen a review of a My Dying Bride album that describes them as fusing heavy metal with goth rock like Tool and Type O Negative before them. Only problem is that review is for the first My Dying Bride album which predates the debut album of Tool by a year and so it was actually MDB that came before Tool and not the other way around. So yes, I'm aware that Rockdetector and Allmusic are prone to make factual errors. They are still reliable sources otherwise. If one can avoid using either site for any information, that would be good but unfortunately, there's not a lot of other reliable sources that we can turn to. Lordsofmetal, metal-observer, metalcoven, chroniclesofchaos - none of them are perfect either but they are still reliable sources generally. It's not a matter of whether all their info is 100% accurate that makes them reliable sources. It's their structure: employed staff with public identities and editorial oversight vs Encyclopaedia Metallum's reliance on contributions from anonymous volunteers. --Bardin (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

01 I don't see how the information found in EM is less credible than in Rockdetector. While Rockdetector has a staff to work on their site, MA also has a staff. No band can be added unless the staff approves it. More than half of the bands that are submitted to MA are rejected. The only difference is that the moderators from Metal Archives don't receive any money. Sure, there are some areas in which an anonymous user can contribute, but a lot of things are moderated by selected individuals. If MA cannot be classified as a reliable source, I don't see how any other metal site can, apart from those maintained by mainstream metal magazines.

02 Yes, they do believe that MA is notable and authoritative. They've added tons of bands from MA that had absolutely no info on the internet. They had to take MA's word for it, or else they wouldn't have added the band. How reliable can be a site that uses the information of another site that is considered unreliable? Evenfiel (talk) 03:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's right. Many bands there are essentially the MA entries with the biography slightly rewritten. Hell, I submitted the American prog band Astronomy because I couldn't find any other information at all on them, and lo and behold, a few months later they appear on Rockdetector. It's hard to see why MA isn't credible while they are, when they're basing pretty much all underground info off of what's already on MA. Durandal1717 (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not really have anything more to say. I believe I've covered my points sufficiently and I also think Blackmetalbaz has provided another good reason as to why Rockdetector is a reliable source and MA isn't over at the talk page of the Encyclopaedia Metallum. If you wish to pursue this further, can I suggest that it be discussed over there since it seems to be the sort of thing that other editors on wikipedia might want to get involved in. I'm watching the talk page myself. --Bardin (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine, now why Lordsofmetal, metal-observer, metalcoven and chroniclesofchaos can be considered as reliable sources and not MA? Evenfiel (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Which part of anonymous contributors vs employed staff contributions do you not get? --Bardin (talk) 04:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

So, having a staff that needs to allow new bands to be added doesn't mean anything? Not allowing new members to modify any information also doesn't mean anything? MA doesn't work like Wikipedia. Evenfiel (talk) 14:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I really do not understand what you are trying to achieve here. Do you really want to prevent me from using all those other heavy metal websites on wikipedia? Somehow, I strongly doubt that. What exactly on MA do you want to use as a reference on wikipedia? All the details on biography, discography and members can easily be found on other sites. Reviews are all contributed from anonymous identities in contrast to reviews on other sites.

When I use a review or an article from Lordsofmetal or some other reliable source, I can do this: cite author=Vera Matthijssens; cite author=Chad Bowar; cite author=Eduardo Rivadavia, etc. These are real identities. Professional reviewers. Paid employees. They are not writing anything because they are a fan. They are not writing because they have an agenda as fans. They write because they are paid to. What exactly am I supposed to do for any info on MA? cite author=anonymous; cite author=random fan; cite author=unknown; cite author=CHRISTI_NS_ANITY8; cite author=Evenfiel; cite author=myself?

Anyone can be a contributor to MA like you. Anyone can also be a contributor to wikipedia like you. Anyone can therefore use their own work on MA as a reference for their own contributions to wikipedia. Do you realize how ridiculous that is? The conflict of interest? The circular referencing? It would be like using wikipedia as a reference for something on wikipedia. You are not a reliable source. I am not a reliable source. Neither of us can contribute anything to Rockdetector or Lordsofmetal without a job interview to screen our abilities to work in a professional setting. In contrast, both of us can easily contribute anything to MA without even revealing our real life identities to anyone.

I think I have provided more than enough reasons and explanation as to why MA is not a reliable source. If you are still not convinced, then I have to say that I'm simply not interested in convincing you any further so please take your queries elsewhere. Thank you. --Bardin (talk) 15:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop MA from the discussion. What really troubles me is that you claim to use only "realiable sources". Now, according to you, only websites that meet the famed three criterias can be considered reliable sources. As much as I think that Rockdetector blows, I agree that it meets the criterias. But what about the other sources used by you? The article about Chronicles of Chaos doesn't meet the notability criteria (Though I wouldn't delete it). The article about The Metal Observer was speedy deleted, some of your other "reliable sources", like Lords of Metal and Metal Coven, do not even have an article on Wikipedia, and I didn't find anything that would make them meet the three criterias. You tried to delete the MA article due to not meeting the three criterias, but at the same time you use non-notable sources. As far as I can tell, you have double standards when chosing what is and what isn't a reliable source. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Evenfiel (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ouch, you're completely confusing reliable sources with notability. Notability concerns whether something should have an article on wikipedia. Reliable sources concern whether something should be used as a reference for a statement in a wikipedia article. Not everything that's reliable is notable enough to have an article on wikipedia and not everything that's notable is a reliable source. I am really quite astonished that you are confusing the two issues. Seriously, please try to read up on wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Bardin (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was quite a big mistep on my part. (Ops...) Concerning your previous post, you claim that your references are reliable due to. 1-Those who write it are paid, not just fans. 2-They sign their articles with their real name. You've used reviews from Tartarean Desire, Chronicles of Chaos and other webzines as sources. Are you sure that they get paid to write a review? I don't think so. Also, if they used a nickname, does that mean you wouldn't use them as a source? It seems to me that the only issue with citing a review from MA is that anyone can write a review for ir, not that the authors don't get paid or do not use their real name....right? Anyway, that's not really an issue to me. I've never thought about citing MA reviews.

Concerning your question on how I would like MA to be used as a source, I see that a lot of people here in Wikipedia use it to discuss genres. It seems to me that MA should be considered a reliable source in discussions about that, cause no user, other than moderators, can modify the genres. Also, sometimes a band does not have an official site, or the official site lacks a lot of information, and MA is the best place to find information on them. I tend to agree with what is written here about MA. Evenfiel (talk) 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If a band performs in a particular genre, surely there would be other reliable sources that indicate as much. Perhaps I have not made myself perfectly clear but I am really, really tired of this discussion. I've known all along from the beginning that you are a very big fan of the site. Not only have you made a lot of contributions to the MA article on wikipedia but you have been very quick to defend it against criticism from other editors in the past. I sincerely doubt that anyone can ever convince you that it is not a reliable source. I certainly never had any interest of doing so in the first place but I tried to be patient and answered your questions as best as I could. I've just taken a look now though at the user page on metal archives and I can't help but noticed that you are one of only four individuals there who have attained the highest rank of a metal god. You are also ranked 14 for the number of points accumulated, even more than the two webmasters of the site. You're not merely a fan then nor are you just one of the many contributors to the site. You're apparently one of the most important person on the site. You say that only moderators can change the genres and I do not doubt you. What you have conveniently neglected to inform me, of course, is that you are one of the moderators on the site yourself.

I have mentioned conflict of interest before when I noted that anyone can be a contributor to both MA and Wikipedia and hence use one's own contribution on the former as a reference for one's own contribution to the latter. I had absolutely no idea that this conflict of interest actually applied in your case or that you have all this while been arguing from this conflict of interest perspective. I guess my instincts were right when I felt that you could not possibly be convinced that MA is an unreliable source when you have been so willing to push it as a reliable source knowing full well that you are essentially pushing your very own point of views, your very own contributions to MA as a reliable source, completely disregarding the blatant conflict of interest there. I am through with this discussion. Stop wasting my time. --Bardin (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm also quite tired of this discussion, but you're trying to accuse me of something that I didn't do.

While it's true that you can accuse me of a possible conflict of interest, it's also true that I've never edited any article about metal on Wikipedia, and I don't think I'll ever do it. I have absolutely no interest in doing that. I didn't create the article about EM, and other users have contributed a lot more to it than me. I was quick to defend it against some editors in the past - the most troublesome of them is now banned from Wikipedia - but I've always tried to be as neutral as possible. I've also never tried to hide my association with EM, cause both my nicknames are the same. I could have easily done otherwise. Evenfiel (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

NFCC 8 revisited

You were involved in this discussion, so I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Criterion 8 objection. howcheng {chat} 21:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Great job!!!

You have made a whole lot of edits on your account (up until the last couple months) but the edits you have done have been great!! Phenomenal job on cleaning up all those metal pages. I do a lot of work on different pages, but the sheer volume of work you seem to be able to add to article (I have no idea how you seem to be able to find all these sources for all the info you add) is amazing and you make those pages look great!!! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your continued work on a wide variety of music articles, both genres and bands. Keep up the good work! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For the mind-boggling amount of information and sources you seem to be able to come up with and make into a formidable article as you have done on folk metal, gothic metal, etc. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yippee! My first barnstars. Thanks a lot. :) --Bardin (talk) 13:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, you earned them! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2