User talk:Black pauk1488

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The project's content policies require that all articles be written from a neutral point of view, and not introduce bias or give undue weight to viewpoints. Please bear this in mind when making edits such as your recent edit to Lucifugum. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Pinkadelica (talk) 20:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for Image:Secta Stabaath.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Secta Stabaath.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 19:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Khlyst (vocalist) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me 23:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Khlyst (vocalist) constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a step back, and reduce the emotion in your comments as they are approaching abuse. "...ignorant corrections..." is unkind. sinneed (talk) 23:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifugum

Hi Pauk,

If Stabaath plays all instruments, then specifying, separately, lead and rhythm guitar is really just wasting pixels. I'll not change it back, though I will removed the plural (which is unnecessary). Also, I'm going to have to put the unreferenced tag back, since the band's own website hardly counts as a 'reliable source,' and if the band is as good (and as notable) as you think, then there should be independent, third-party, in-depth articles about them. Find some if you can, and that will strenghten the article. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Ello again. To be honest, I wrote the page for Diaboli to correct another user's copyright violation one afternoon; as it happens, I've never even heard the band, I just intrinsically dislike copyvios. I reckon they're borderline notable owing to label releases, but would be hardly surprised if someone else took it to AfD; the sources cited don't really establish notability as it stands. I suppose I should look for more sources. However, note that the interviews are not being used to justify notability, but to back up biographical details, for which they are perfectly valid as reliable sources. I also point out that the sources cited are not hosted by the band's website; pretty much anything on the Propaganda page cannot be used as they're not a third-party source; it's a WP:COI issue. Finally, I'll say once again that I actually really quite like Lucifugum, but liking a band doesn't make them notable. Out of curiosity (given that the page is largely edited by single-purpose accounts), is there any direct relationship between you, the band or any of the other SPAs? I'm assuming good faith, but it looks a bit iffy. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 19:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’m from Ukraine and I’m a big-big fan of this great band during many years. So I want you to understand my emotions. I’ll be very grateful if you save Lucifugum page for the history. Believe me, friend, this band deserves it. Thank you in advance. --Black pauk1488 (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Lucifugum

A tag has been placed on Lucifugum requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. RadioFan (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Diaboli. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. ^blurred _peace ☮ 21:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Clandestine Blaze has been reverted, as it removed all content from the page without explanation. Please do not do this, as it is considered vandalism; use the sandbox for testing. If you think the page should be deleted, see this page for instructions. Thank you. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content, as you did to Deathspell Omega. Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalized, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. --Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking pages as it constitutes vandalism.you will be blocked if you continue on with such edits! You can use the sandbox for testing. Again in your recent edits, you attempted to blank pages. These edits were reverted. Thank you--Parvazbato59 (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Secta Khlyst.jpg

File Copyright problem

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

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 14:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something that you should note

Regarding this edit, recreation of the article does not mean that the article can not be further edited, editing of articles (even featured articles) for improvement is encouraged. Also recreation of the article does not mean that the whole content is approved and should be left alone. Administrators are the only people who can restore articles, and they only restore articles to one of their previous versions (unless the feel the need to edit the article after the fact), it is not an endorsement of that version in particular and it does not mean that nobody else can edit the article. You should keep in mind that you do not own that article, and that others are free to edit it as appropriate. If you have any questions or need any help, please ask on my talk page. Cheers--kelapstick (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Black pauk1488. You have new messages at Fabrictramp's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again

Hi there. I do genuinely sympathise with your desire to keep this page (as I've stated before I am a fan of the band). But at the minute there are basically no sources that I can find to substanstiate their notability... it can't have escaped your notice that all of the interviews are in fanzines, and the transcripts hosted on Lucifugum's own label site (which, lest we forget is owned by... Lucifugum). I reckon (and this may be a long shot) your best option is to try and demonstrate that Oaken Shield is a notable indie (as an Adipocere sublabel you might be able to make a case). Blackmetal.com clearly isn't, given a total lack of independent coverage, and I suspect that Oaken Shield may run into the same problem. An argument to drop though is trying the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line, which carries no weight. This is particularly relevant given some of the examples you use... Deathspell Omega for instance (whose article is terrible, granted) have been granted the likes of Terrorizer magazine's album of the month at least once (possibly twice; I'd have to look) and placed in their end of year polls. This is non-trivial third-party coverage in a reliable, commercially printed source, which is something that Lucifugum has yet to achieve. If I can help, I will, but at the minute I can't find any decent sources. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 23:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from deleted article talk page

notability

This article has been recreated with kind permission of administrator User:Fabrictramp. The band is notable.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole content of this article was approved by administrator User:Fabrictramp. Links and references to Metal Archives also. Look here: User:Black pauk1488/Lucifugum}}. It was an administrator's decision. Please respect it.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that the admin in question has just posted "G4 speedy. I did not "approve" this version. I explicitly told the author to fix the problems before moving to main space." Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hangon

I'm not contesting the speedy, per se, merely requesting a little more time. I've found [1] [2] [3]. Having refused the last speedy, I'm hoping someone less involved or more knowledgeable will determine whether it establishes notability- aside from the recreation. HJMitchell You rang? 00:35, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you count the number of interwikilinks the band must be notable! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:39, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of interwikis is no indication of notability. If you look at any of them, you will find that not a single one provides a reliable source. I would also like to point out that none of the sources provided by HJ Mitchell is reliable either; that the band exists is not in question, but rather whether they fulfill such guidelines as WP:MUSIC. I note also that at least link 3 is a cut and paste job from Wikipedia (or vice versa). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifugum rescitation

Hi your English is good enough to talk to me. Unfortunately I know nothing on the subject, so I do not know what web sites are good and which are not. I would suggest that you find more than one reliable reference. The normal standard is two, and I have seen some ask for three references to show notability. If you can demonstrate that they toured in many countries that will meet another criterium. Are there newspaper articles in your native language that mention the band? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:53, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing about your improvement, it is better to deceased than R.I.P. remember this is an encyclopedia, with out opinions attached! The categories and iw links can come back when it is an article again. Or you can stick : on front of each category or iw, and they will become visible as links. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second reliable sourse is Rockdetector. You can see it as a reference. I also found the third source, review at Tartarean Desire web-zine: http://www.tartareandesire.com/reviews/Lucifugum/The_Supreme_Art_Of_Genocide/3153/ As for the newspaper, there was an article and interview in Ukrainian major magazine Terrorizer.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again about a newspaper, I found this: http://www.blackmetal.com/cgi-bin/gold/category.cgi?category=search&item=PROPSA0G10CD&type=store There is a scan copy there of a review in major magazine SOD. Now there are 4 reliable sources--Black pauk1488 (talk) 15:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually, at present, one reliable source (Rockdetector). Blackmetal.com and Propaganda can't be used to establish notability because of WP:COI problems (although they're fine for biographical detail; however that alone doesn't pass WP:MUSIC. Tartarean Desire is a webzine, so can't be used pretty much by definition (please see WP:RS, which you clearly either haven't read or understood) and Librarius Metallicus is, despite your protestations, user-edited... see the front page for details (see "Become a Librarian" link). The content is pretty much word for word identical to the Wikipedia biography, so either Wiki is a copyvio, or the LM page is simply lifted staright from here. Finally, whilst there is a major magazine called Terrorizer, the one Black Pauk is referring to is not it.

Finally, finally, and slightly unrelated, can I point out that if the "1488" in your user name is (as I'm guessing it must be) a reference to the fourteen words, it is probably in violation of WP:IU as an "offensive username". If so, I recommend changing it. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pauk, that's an interesting question. Do you care to explain the 14 and the 88? Drmies (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT a guy of fourteen words. It's not interesting to me at all, as well as any herd ideology. Black Metal and nazi have nothing to do together.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lucifugum

I cannot believe that anyone had the gal to delete Lucifugum. They are an extremely well known black metal band and I completely understand why you may be angry. If you want, get a copy of the deleted material from an admin, and I will help you bring it to notable status. Undead Warrior (talk) 14:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the page with all material and history is here: User:Black pauk1488/Lucifugum}}. Feel free to edit it and to correct the mistakes.--Black pauk1488 (talk) 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, once again. Thanks for bringing to my attention the Last.fm ref on the Nocturnal Breed article... it's now been removed. The article, I agree, is a mess and needs a lot of work but seems to pass WP:MUSIC by virture of multiple releases on Hammerheart Records and containing members of Dimmu Borgir; however, feel free to take it to AfD if you disagree. I'll have a stab at improving it when I finish the mammoth task of sourcing all of the various list articles I've been working on. I thought the "Christianbaz" comment on another user's talk page was not terribly civil, and you might want to think about refraining from such comments in future (should you be interested, I'm a staunch atheist, so regard both Christianity and Satanism as equally fallacious). Finally, and purely to satisfy my curiosity (it's pretty much impossible to genuinely offend me!), what is the origin of the 1488 in your username, if it is not related to the fourteen words? Actually, finally finally, if reliable sources are found for the Lucifugum article, I will do my best to help you (and others) to get it into decent shape if asked. All the best, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your comment is that you claim that the biggest selling extreme metal magazine in the world is "not competent", whereas you clearly are. This violates WP:OR and particularly WP:NPOV. Find a source, giving non-trivial, significant coverage in a print source, or reliable Internet equivalent (remembering that "reliable" on Wikipedia does not mean "accurate" as you may personally see it) and get back to me, and I'll try and help you get the article into a decent state. The argument that they've been releasing an album a year for however long, on a label that they own, just doesn't wash. I could release an album a week on a label that I own; it wouldn't make me notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]