User talk:Indopug/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Indopug. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Welcome!
Hello, Indopug, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
FAC
Hi there. What exactly do you mean by this: “No mention has been made of the music has been meade - wasn't it s rap rock revolutionary ?” What are you actually trying to address here; I don't seem to understand. Please reply on my talk page. (SUDUSER)85 12:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay now I understand. But as to what you said about the album being "revolutionary" - now I don't think that's verifiable. I know it only as a notable nu metal album, and the source that says that is gone now. So I don't think you should actually list that as a scrutiny on the FAC, at the same time I don't think all people will think it's that. (SUDUSER)85 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- ""described Hybrid Theory as " and "Hybrid Theory has its obvious drawbacks." and "Rock Sound"- MoS errors." again I don't understand this claim. And what do you mean by Rock Sound being an MoS error? (SUDUSER)85 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay now I understand. Oh, and you didn't remove the point “No mention has been made of the music has been meade - wasn't it s rap rock revolutionary ?” from the FAC (SUDUSER)85 01:35, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- ""described Hybrid Theory as " and "Hybrid Theory has its obvious drawbacks." and "Rock Sound"- MoS errors." again I don't understand this claim. And what do you mean by Rock Sound being an MoS error? (SUDUSER)85 14:34, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Okay now I understand. But as to what you said about the album being "revolutionary" - now I don't think that's verifiable. I know it only as a notable nu metal album, and the source that says that is gone now. So I don't think you should actually list that as a scrutiny on the FAC, at the same time I don't think all people will think it's that. (SUDUSER)85 13:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject
Indopug. Seasons greetings. Thank you for the kind comments. The next major thing that needs to be done is sorting through the articles, improving upon them (if required), then grading them. I'm hoping other editors can join in after the New Years break. We've made a start with tagging them and Koafv has already done a tremendous job so far. Please feel free to add your thoughts and suggestions on the project. MegX (talk) 23:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Why did you delete the FACs? The ones listed were previous ones and kept as a historical record. If you had clicked on the FACs link you would have seen the previous discussions. Both Led Zeppelin and Stairway to Heaven were previous candidates. MegX (talk) 23:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't responsible for the individual member category, but nonetheless once the number of articles starts expanding I can see the need for it. It would be directly linked to the artists albums and songs in questions so I wouldn't at this stage delete it as over time it will get used. MegX (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- A nice little side feature of the tagging, is statistic log where we can trace articles that have been deleted. One article "Live at Knebworth DVD" was deleted uncontested on December 21st. No-one said anything but I'm presuming this was a recreation of a previous article. I guess that's another thing to put on the "to-do" list where a decent article needs to be done up! MegX (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not bureaucracy really. The categories and tables will be filled over time. I wouldn't have created it if it wasn't possible to do it. It's standard in a few other WikiProjects. The thing is, once you've deleted an article or category, it's almost impossible to get it back. Since WikiProject is a project in progress removing anything now would be counterproductive for the future. No-one here is forcing anyone to do extra work. What's the rush? MegX (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi again. We can't bring the old pic back. The admins deleted it for breach of copyright (I didn't upload it, I just used it). In fact two images since used for the template were also deleted as well. That's why I settled on a public domain picture. Hard to delete an image that's public domain. MegX (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- "Also, we should get the old pic back for the infobox; the new one doesn't show john bonham, hence that qualifies fair-use" - perhaps you should find one then to upload for the template. MegX (talk) 06:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. We can't bring the old pic back. The admins deleted it for breach of copyright (I didn't upload it, I just used it). In fact two images since used for the template were also deleted as well. That's why I settled on a public domain picture. Hard to delete an image that's public domain. MegX (talk) 05:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
- Not bureaucracy really. The categories and tables will be filled over time. I wouldn't have created it if it wasn't possible to do it. It's standard in a few other WikiProjects. The thing is, once you've deleted an article or category, it's almost impossible to get it back. Since WikiProject is a project in progress removing anything now would be counterproductive for the future. No-one here is forcing anyone to do extra work. What's the rush? MegX (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- A nice little side feature of the tagging, is statistic log where we can trace articles that have been deleted. One article "Live at Knebworth DVD" was deleted uncontested on December 21st. No-one said anything but I'm presuming this was a recreation of a previous article. I guess that's another thing to put on the "to-do" list where a decent article needs to be done up! MegX (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't responsible for the individual member category, but nonetheless once the number of articles starts expanding I can see the need for it. It would be directly linked to the artists albums and songs in questions so I wouldn't at this stage delete it as over time it will get used. MegX (talk) 05:41, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Led Zeppelin
Just curious but why did you replace a Guitar World entry with that of a different Rolling Stones list, in the main article? MegX (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Image tagging for Image:Led Zeppelin 1969 Promo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Led Zeppelin 1969 Promo.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We requires this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 10:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Alice in Chains FAC
First of all, you need to calm down, it is not that big of a deal. Second of all, guest artists are notable, especially on "Iron Gland". Third of all, the Metallica reference in the Influence paragraph is fine, and was worded by a peer. Fourth of all, just that isn't enough for a strong oppose, that is enough for a comment, and it is Support, Oppose, or Comment, not strong oppose. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- All done, look carefully at my messages, it is a mess. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 23:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything that was listed is done. I left messages and done templates. Thank you for helping me with this also. Support? Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have left another message. Please read it well and see what I am saying. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Another reply. How do you know what you are talking about if you have only been on for less than a month, and no GAs or FAs to your name? I'm just curious. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 02:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I have left another message. Please read it well and see what I am saying. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything that was listed is done. I left messages and done templates. Thank you for helping me with this also. Support? Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Dido. Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
- I left a whopper of a message this time. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 06:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I replied to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Godsmack discography. Did you read my FAC message, if so please reply. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 07:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- I was only wondering if you used to edit under another name or your IP and you became experienced. Once I am finished with Opeth, would you like to take a look at it at the PR? I am going to have the PR, and probably skip GA and go to FAC. Chevelle is going to FAC soon also. Peace, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything is
Done, but I don't know how to get the cataloage number. I left a message before this one also. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Everything is
- I was only wondering if you used to edit under another name or your IP and you became experienced. Once I am finished with Opeth, would you like to take a look at it at the PR? I am going to have the PR, and probably skip GA and go to FAC. Chevelle is going to FAC soon also. Peace, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Done —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Slay Tracks FAC
I've addressed the issues you had at the Slay Tracks FAC. If you feel I didn't adequately complete a task, or have any other issues with the article, just say so at its nomination. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Article classification
At what point would you be upgrading articles from "Start" to "B"? There are some that do have an infobox and expanded information since the first WikiProject Album gradings. MegX (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I've responded to your comments and look forward to hearing whether you'll be changing your Comment to Support. --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank very much for your support. Would you mind nipping back to strike through (using <s> and </s> the headers of Somments and Further comments just to show they're dealt with please? It's frowned on if this is done by anyone other than the original editor, you see. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Done. Hope my nitpicking helped. indopug (talk) 07:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah. It was good to get another perspective and all the Supports were getting boring: )) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- This might interest you [2] indopug (talk) 08:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HamletSkullHCSealous.jpg){kind=link}
- It did! Thanks. Continued at Talk:Hamlet#Hamlet & Skull images ... --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Whoever you are
Apparently you have been accused of being a sockpuppet of me at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Save Us 229. Thought I would be the one to let you know since someone decided not to. — Save_Us_229 01:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I feel the same way. >.> — Save_Us_229 05:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I think she just found a scapegoat because she was bad mouthing me on the en-wikipedia mailing list about Image:Zoso.svg. — Save_Us_229 05:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, can I ask you what country your editing from? — Save_Us_229 05:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know, and I understand where your coming from and I've been there before and I hope you don't leave because of this. I am from the United States, but I could tell you weren't from somewhere here because most of your edits were accumulated during the time I was asleep at night (which is your day) :) — Save_Us_229 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Checkuser is essentialy an IP check to see if accounts been using the same IP, but I like your idea much better. :) — Save_Us_229 06:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know, and I understand where your coming from and I've been there before and I hope you don't leave because of this. I am from the United States, but I could tell you weren't from somewhere here because most of your edits were accumulated during the time I was asleep at night (which is your day) :) — Save_Us_229 05:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I did my IP address in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Save Us 229, your turn :) — Save_Us_229 06:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because I like the full conversation on my talk page so it isn't segmented. Some people don't like it segmented. I also added it to your page to notify you I have replied and it saves your time. Some people think it's a waste of time, but I don't mind. :) — Save_Us_229 06:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- No, I don't, but thats a good idea for a script, I'll have to toss the idea around ;) — Save_Us_229 06:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I'm tired, it's 2 a.m. here, so good night, and good luck :) — Save_Us_229 06:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Reply
I uploaded a new version of that image because A) it's much clearer, B) a landscape style photo in the infobox looks neater, C) it's the photo being used primarily for Mothership promotion, and D) it's from the same press photos section, it doesn't really matter who the photographer is, they're all likely property of Atlantic Records, except this one doesn't have that proof cropped out.. IrisKawling (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- The file name of the image is "69PROMO", and I believe that to be true (around March '69). So I'll leave that as is, and just change the photographer note. IrisKawling (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, If you have time, would you mind performing a copy-edit and review Opeth at Wikipedia:Peer review/Opeth. Give me all the crap you see, I'll get it taken care of before FAC. Thank you, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I will be getting sample soon probably, I just have to ask someone to get them. I'll take a look at that article in a little bit. i didn' re-nominate Alice in Chains, Raul re-started it, it is the same one. You were actually the only official objection. Seriously though, putting "strong" in front just doesn't look good. If you oppsose, could you just put "oppose" and leave it at that? That really would be apreciated. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 21:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- However, I would like if you still commented. If you didn't want to that's fine. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think i said anything about the sources? (don't think i did), i just told Skeeker to try and fix the problems you brought up in the previous FA before you take another look at the page and oppose again, which is obviously too late now ;). I agree with you with the sources as I did it with Metallica. Anyway thanks for your help with the Metallica FAC, although it is closed if you have any issues just leave them on my talk page and i will see what i can do. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- M3tal H3ad didn't say anything about the sources, User:J Milburn did (he is an admin). Please look at my reply on the FAC page. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh sorry, I misunderstood. I left a message on the FAC. The sources you want cannot be used, as stated by an administrator. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- M3tal H3ad didn't say anything about the sources, User:J Milburn did (he is an admin). Please look at my reply on the FAC page. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think i said anything about the sources? (don't think i did), i just told Skeeker to try and fix the problems you brought up in the previous FA before you take another look at the page and oppose again, which is obviously too late now ;). I agree with you with the sources as I did it with Metallica. Anyway thanks for your help with the Metallica FAC, although it is closed if you have any issues just leave them on my talk page and i will see what i can do. Thanks. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- However, I would like if you still commented. If you didn't want to that's fine. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you archived your talk page wrong. I just thought I would let you know. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- I left another comment. Are you going to review Opeth? Please do so before I take it FAC. I would like for you to give me all the stuff you see, so it isn't on the FAC. Please give me everything, to the point of where you would support right away on the FAC (if you so choose). —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- The PR is on the WP:HMM page already. Thanks for reviewing. Wow, I completly missunderstood the magazine thing the entire time. I feel like a donkey. WeasleyDodds is going to help me out, and I will get that stuff taken care of in a day. I have an extra day off of school this week. Would you mind posting those articles you found on my talk page? And one last thing, could you comment on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nightwish? I'll take care of the song article in a minute. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate Nightwish also. I saw it was featured so I read it, and it sucks big time, so I put it in for a review to get it demoted. An FAR is pretty much the opposite of an FAC. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Is that your first GA out of any account or anything you previously had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeeker (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- It feels sweet, doesn't it? Now you need an FA, those feel even cooler to know you have an article like that. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem. Is that your first GA out of any account or anything you previously had? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeeker (talk • contribs) 04:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- I hate Nightwish also. I saw it was featured so I read it, and it sucks big time, so I put it in for a review to get it demoted. An FAR is pretty much the opposite of an FAC. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The PR is on the WP:HMM page already. Thanks for reviewing. Wow, I completly missunderstood the magazine thing the entire time. I feel like a donkey. WeasleyDodds is going to help me out, and I will get that stuff taken care of in a day. I have an extra day off of school this week. Would you mind posting those articles you found on my talk page? And one last thing, could you comment on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nightwish? I'll take care of the song article in a minute. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that all you saw for the article, or was that patial? Please, leave nothing out. I left messages also. Thanks for the review. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 22:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
U2 FAC...
Hi Indopug. Thanks for your review - what a slave driver! (joke) I've made a number (most?) of those changes you suggested - some I don't agree with although i've come around to most, see what you think :-) . Hopefully I can finish in a few days. I also had a go at reconfiguring he lead. Latest version. Note, while I agree with the logical flow you suggested, it makes the middle paragraph extra big and the others short. hmmm. What do you think? --Merbabu (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I liked your heading change. Cheers. --Merbabu (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- The article got promoted - I must say I was surprised at the speed. I thought I had another few weeks of work ahead of me. Anyway, i just wanted to say thanks for all the suggestions and that I intend to implement the rest of them soon - well, almost all of them. And, please offer more as you see fit. perhaps I could also ask you to review a few other articles - although they are not FAC ready yet. --Merbabu (talk) 05:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- User Colone
Hope I don't further inflame things with this post, but to answer your question on User:Coloane at the U2 FAC page, there is some agreement that his FAC contributions are not altogether in the best of faith.
He’s contributed to 3 other FACs or FA reviews - at least recently, and his intent was questioned by different editors each time. Indeed, I had come across him last week pre-U2 FAC and I pulled no punches in (civilly) expressing my opinion on few related pages – as I said, this is pre-U2 FAC. Thus, it was quite a coincidence that he appeared on U2 and Indonesia (he lamely nominated it for FA review after another Indonesia editor opposed Macau's FAC - Coloane's hometown). Both U2 and Indonesia are listed on my user page as my “main” articles. Coincidence or retaliation?
Further, his comments on Russia FAC clearly state that he will always oppose any FAC nomination and to do his best to make sure it fails whenever nominated. He has also promised to renominate Indonesia for review on 1 Feb with new reasons.(?!?) Comments on my talk page re U2 are admittedly more subtle, but suggest (to me at least) disruptive intent.
Re-read closely his contributions to U2's FAC and see what you think of his reasoning – particularly after Jayron’s reply to him. Note, I did reply civilly why I disagreed with his U2 comments, then later suggested there was not much more I could do to help and suggested other opinion might help.
These ANI threads should cast some more light (also see Indonesia and Russia FAR and FAC):
Let me know if further explanation is needed. :-)
kind regards
--Merbabu (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Touch Me I'm Sick
Welcome. For that matter, what I mean was that the "date" field in the reference tag, which is the "publication date" of the source, should be enclosed in parenthesis. Wait for Skeeker who formally reviewed "Touch Me I'm Sick" to make the decision. It's GA now. Good work. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 02:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Grats. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 13:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Appreciation
I wanted to tell you that I appreciated your participation at FAC.--Kiyarrllston 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I worked on the things you pointed out. It should be noted, however, that the film is currently at requests for copyediting, so the article should be up to standards by the time it is passed as a FA. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC))
- Hi. I noticed that you haven't commented on the article since improvements were made and your comments were addressed. Please take a look at it again and reevaluate its FA status. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
Hey what do you think of my writing on Chevelle? —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 01:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Also, would you mind performing a copy-edit on it? Let me know if you have any upcoming GANs or FACS please. Thanks, —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Alice in Chains FAC
Hey man, sorry if I came off as a dick, reading back what I said at the FAC, I see it may have sounded that way. I wasnt trying to attack you, I was just concerned that some of the reasons you gave shouldn't have much to do with wether or not the article meets FA criteria, and that people were opposing based on those reasons. Regardless of my recent absence, I do have a good idea what makes a FA, I wrote the Megadeth article and have contributed significantly to others. The AIC article is a little sparse in places, and I have taken to adding some stuff to it. But Alice in Chains have a lot less history than Metallica, R.E.M. or Radiohead, or a lot of other FA music articles. They had a long inactive period, and only 3 real albums released. I think as far as factual info, albums, charts, critical response, and major events, the article is pretty comprehensive. I am in the process of giving it a little more substance overall, and possibly working on some prose (I've redone the lead, and first few sections so far) I understand what you said about writing-quality, but the points you left on the FAC page, have to do with other things - rumors, inspiration, ect. Anyway, let me get a little deeper into this article, take another look in a few days. Thanks for responding, and keep up the good work! Skeletor2112 (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Would you mind taking another look at the article? It has improved a lot. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 20:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Curious about the change[3] of 10 million to ten million.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Just checking, no problem. The nominator has asked everyone to weigh in as to whether the sourcing and comprehensive issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Replied —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
- Please take another look. Skeletor2112 and I worked on it just this last day and I truley belive everything you wanted has been taken care of. —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 00:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
- Replied —Burningclean [Speak the truth!] 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Audioslave
It's ok, although the reason it eventually grew so long is that they had like a busy career, it was only a few years but really busy unlike AIC, or Nirvana, or I don't know.. The Radiohead and Smashing Pumpkins articles are about that long too. But I agree with most of your edits, I still reverted a couple of them, but nothing serious I think (for example I don't think that dates such as September 5 with no year should be linked according to wiki rules, as just years, or months aren't linked either). And about the solo projects section..I don't know..I remember the Radiohead article had a solo work section at the time I wrote Audioslave, but it seems not it's gone.. The only reason I found this section important is that Morello did solo work while in Audioslave, "When on tour with Audioslave, he would sign up anonymously for open mic nights, then he went on playing at political rallies and demonstrations." And I think that's the only part concerning Audioslave themselves, maybe we can put it in the article somewhere, or if we can't, then delete it as well with the whole solo projects part. Gocsa (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oops, yeah, you're right about the dates. So do you think we should keep something from the solo projects section and add it to the body of the article, or delete the whole thing? Gocsa (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
And another thing, just a question. Do you happen to have access to older Kerrang! magazines in any form/way? I know there's rocksbackpages.com, but they don't have the one I need. I need a 1997 magazine, February if I'm not mistaken, a review of Strapping Young Lad's City. Gocsa (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I got rid of the whole section, it really wasn't that important. And, Strapping Young Lad is a band, City is their second album. :) I will try to make Strapping Young Lad a FA in the near future that is why I need the article. Gocsa (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions about User:Indopug. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |