User talk:Mashaunix/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

This archive contains all discussions up until the end of 2014.

Mars images

I created both of these images of Mars on the terraforming page. The "featured" one is only so because of it's age. The second one I created more recently to replace it is more realistic and less artsy than the other. Please compare to this actual image of earth for reference: [1] Ittiz (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank's for explaining it. :) --MASHAUNIX 23:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

April 2014

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Restoring Force (album) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. STATic message me! 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I was wrong to not have made sure I was following the correct procedure. I have never done this before nor will I do it again.--MASHAUNIX 14:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Undiscussed, unsourced genre change

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Opeth, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In this case I thought the genre in question to be simply an alternative name of the genre I changed it to, to which it redirects anyway. I've now fixed the link without changing the appearance.----MASHAUNIX 19:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, looks good now. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Moron Church listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Moron Church. Since you had some involvement with the Moron Church redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 20:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

After reading your comments, I apologize for not assuming good faith.--- ARTEST4ECHO ^(talk) 11:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Please do not create pages that attack, threaten, or disparage their subject. Attack pages and files are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who create or add such material may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted this redirect. Please don't make redirects that serve only the purpose of disparaging its subject. Chillum 02:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just read your comment at the deletion discussion and see this was not meant to be disparaging. Please disregard my prior comment. Chillum 03:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"hogan's heroes may have formed in 1984, but they started as a (crossover) thrash band and released their first metalcore album in 1988"

the band started no different than their first album heres a demo link from 1985 it contains all the same metal elements . Breakdowns , solos , tremolo bar , harmonics etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tsVry5soSw&list=UUUAyAZdfBcL9iRdlbOAlxAw about 8 minutes for the whole thing I listened already a long time ago . Ill share with you . stating they started as a certain genre means it matters to you how they started . Its been the same style from the earliest recordings there is also one called "first demo tape" at youtube 68.39.152.45 (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC) How is hat relative to "late 80s" ? 68.39.152.45 (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right about that, but the fact remains that their first label release was in 1988, and though they might have already been metalcore before, it wasn't until around 1990 that this influenced other bands to actually form the genre; Earth Crisis and Integrity only formed in 1988/9. One band doesn't make a genre; it's the period when the genre's sound forms a following that we refer to as the origins. That's just my opinion though, and I think you should bring it up on the talk page to metalcore and see what everyone else thinks. If there's agreement, we could change it to "mid to late 1980s" in the infobox.--MASHAUNIX 21:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

OK that seems to make Good Sense . Have to let that sit awhile and then Either it will be taken to the talk page or not . What you typed has validity . However With BLACK SABBATH Metal STARTED WITH ONE BAND . Even though Metal Pioneers such as Cream and Blue Cheer Preceded them. SO can one band make a Genre Absolutely . Matter of fact I may change that based on that section of music history and thought process alone . SO yes it may take more than one band to create a "scene" however now that I think of it ONE BAND is "responsible" for starting Heavy Metal according to music historians . Black Sabbath . so with that in mind (not what I was going to originally type) I am realizing . Hogans Heroes IS Enough to start a genre . If Black Sabbath is One band Enough to "start" Heavy Metal . Just like D.O.A. "started the usage of hardcore . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest You, take it to the talk page . Where I will be Glad to get involved in a discussion via typed words . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I have made a small edit just now to create more of a compromise; I'll post about it on the talk page now.----MASHAUNIX 19:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Ill go there and read/check it out . Youth Crew is a "way of thinking" Not A Musical Style . Not to say Iwas there, but I was . It was a term that linking some like minded bands together via the feeling of a "crew" . Also if you weren't "approved" by one certain NY HC band you weren't "in" . A Genre and musical style is All Inclusive . Not just those deemed "cool enough" . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Not only that but without being able to "play" their guitars more than Power Chords there isn't ant TECHNIQUE of Heavy Metal . Besides "distortion" . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, I was responding to the fact that metalcore is listed under stylistic origins on the youth crew page and I just felt like it deserved a mention in the infobox. I'll see if I can list it under other topics later.----MASHAUNIX 19:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Cool . Working Together is a great thing here at Wikipedia . Why would it even need to be in "other topics" when its not a genre and usually the "youth crew" people shove it in Every Article Possible with no relation to the topic . Its already been there and gone for Years . Its a Promo Page on wikipedia for the "cool" people (who were) deemed by ONE HC Group . They only have that page because before 2008 Wikipedia was easier to make a page a slip through the filters . This is seen by some groups who have a page with No, or ONE "source" and usually its the bands own website which isn't a source anyway . "Youth Crew" is no different . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll forget it.----MASHAUNIX 20:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Overlink

WP:OVERLINK simply states that countries should not be linked. Instruments are probably sufficiently common that they should not be linked either. The bullets are just a preferences and you should either use {{flatlist}} or {{unbulleted list}}. Also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, particularly WP:FLATLIST. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was tired and didn't notice your edit on the links (as well as cultural origins); I was wrong to revert it. I still think the bullet points should be used, but I'll read around the topic in what you linked me before making a conclusion, and then get back to you if I feel the need to. Sorry again about the revert.----MASHAUNIX 07:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

bands are referenced as Metalcore

For Example:

"Judge, Integrity and Hogan's Heroes were some of the earliest bands to bring this level of intensity to hardcore—an amalgamation of deep, hoarse vocals (though rarely as deep or guttural as death metal); downtuned guitars and thrashy drum rhythms inspired by earlier hardcore bands; and slow staccato low-end breaks, known as breakdowns. Thrash metal and melodic death metal elements are also common in metalcore." Perhaps maybe READ the article instead of trying to change everything . ? Huh ? Most of the bands have been categorized metallic hardcore as per the Metallic Hardcore section . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The of the article section is what I was reflecting on; I think the term metallic hardcore should be mentioned in he intro. As for the second part, the fact that a lot of these bands are melodic metalcore doesn't need referencing.----MASHAUNIX 21:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the article . Its a heading not a spot to cram everything ALREADY In The Article . Also, its busy and unnecessary .68.39.152.45 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Also its ALL Metalcore some lead towards punk some lean towards metal . Quite simple . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 21:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Then remove the section dividing bands into 2 groups from the intro alltogether. As long as it's there, it should be linked to metallic hardcore and melodic metalcore. As of now, the intro is quite short (only one paragraph, much less than in standard good articles), so there is nothing wrong with adding information. In my opinion, metallic hardcore should be mentioned in bold in the intro, as it is used as an alternative name for the genre, at least in some contexts.----MASHAUNIX 22:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

people could also go to every article on wikipedia where ever it says "Crossover Thrash" and add (sometimes confused with thrashcore) but that would be unprofessional . Very . Unprofessional Also the "size of the heading section" doesn't have anything to do with the contents . Does "Chronological Alphabetical" have less meaning because its two words . No it doesn't . Its not needed . We could also take every band there and add (also Hardcore Punk, Metalcore, Hip hop and Shoegaze) . I mean if the goal to make a complete mess out of something written well . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 22:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"We" arent removing ANYTHING. The sections start from inception til current . Easy to Follow Easy to learn from . The goal of an Article . If anyone wants to know what other groupings or characteristics of the bands they will go to their articles . You know this stuff . Right ? 68.39.152.45 (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes confused with Thrashcore" for crossover thrash would be fine. I have no idea what you mean by unprofessional in this context. My point is, the intro divides prominent metalcore bands into 2 groups. The difference is often expressed using the terms "metallic hardcore" and "melodic metalcore", as is explained later in the article. There is no reason why the intro shouldn't mention this.----MASHAUNIX 22:22, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Crossover Thrash" and add (sometimes confused with thrash core) this is Already At The Crossover page . I mean in every article it has a mention . there is no "two groups" . Its already explained a little down the page . It ALREADY IS mentioned . I hope your not "editing" with emotions . Unbiased and whats good for an Article is what matters . An Article is a learning tool . The article serves as that . Very well . "Precursors - Metallic hardcore (1990s) - Commercial success (2000s to present)" You're having a hard time finding that on the same page . Many of those bands have been referenced as metallic and metalcore and many other things . So What . The Broad Umbrella term is Metalcore - Straight up Metal Mixed with Hardcore . They ALL Are . Even the ones that "lean" towards one way or another are STILL METALCORE. Like it Or Not . It is what it is . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You realize in the time period it is its Natural to lean towards a particular direction . Is rice pudding not rice pudding if it leans towards cinnamon or leans towards the milk . Its ONE Thing . Its easy to read and concise and to the point . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 22:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not denying that they are both metalcore, just saying that there is a difference between them, as outlined in the intro. If you disagree with it, remove it alltogether. But so long as it's there, it should mention the appropriate terms.----MASHAUNIX 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Same goes for your edits on crossover thrash. If you think the section shouldn't there, remove it. But so long as it is, it should learn to the terms mentioned. And no, that's not "promo", as neither skinheads nor NYHC have anything to gain from this.----MASHAUNIX 22:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh Yeah they do , actually . New York hardcore gets PROMOed as well as the bands links . They should but actually(get credit), in an Encyclopedic way . Such as "The early crossover scene influenced some early New York Hardcore bands starting in 1984, including" . Im not worried about it . Im not trying to change every page I come across . Just make them accurate and Better . The edits you're doing dont seem very well thought out . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Im not removing it . people will freak out lol . However the whole "skinhead wing" may be true but does not read well At All . For like, 5 ? Years now lol 68.39.152.45 (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Im mean if you have a Valid reason why New York hardcore should be "blue linked" (besides its what usually gets done) and if readers did go there and get lost in the article that they would actually learn something about crossover Thrash(from a blue link to New York hardcore) . Im down . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 23:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)68.39.152.45 (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not just "what usually gets done". Blue-linking relevant terms is a guideline on Wikipedia and is one of the things that make it a useful learning tool. And the linked terms don't have to be of special relevance to the article, just the fact that they are mentioned is enough. In an article about a band, you will link the country they are from, even if one wouldn't learn anything about the band by reading about the country. Links provide readers with a quick way to get to the information they want, so that they don't have to type "skinhead" in when they want to know what it means. That term is either there and blue-linked, or removed. There is no compromise.----MASHAUNIX 00:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

there always is a compromise . the NWOBHM isn't bothering anyone except you . Also there are Plenty of terms that aren't blue links . So . Also I think Stuff thats not related shouldn't be blue linked at all . No now will notice and skinhead is relative to Crossover Thrash how ? They didn't invert, pioneer, nor (are they known to) only listen to it . As consensus has it NWOBHM has been seen by MANY Editors . Not a one removed it and its fair to say without NWOBHM there wouldn't have been a Metalcore as Early as they was and is . Also Built to Last it says ALL of it was recorded Prior to 1987 . There type of issues always arise anytime anyone Doesn't constructively edit and learn the article and make it better . Its always once in a while someone decides to take an article and perhaps edit "emotionally" and perhaps obsess over trying to change more than they even understand about the topic or writing style . How about this the term is there, if its unlinked its STILL there and still provides Knowledge . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The people who don't contribute to this discussion are irrelevant to it. My point is not that NWOBHM is irrelevant to metalcore (you have convinced me it is relevant), but that it has no place in the "other topics" section. As I have said, look at such sections on featured articles like heavy metal music, punk rock and grunge. As for links, they serve to further the understanding of the reader. The meaning of the term "skinhead" isn't common knowledge, and there are no disadvantages to blue-linking it; saying it promotes the group is like saying a link to Joseph Stalin in an article promotes communism. Providing knowledge isn't advertisement.----MASHAUNIX 03:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, where does NWOBHM go ? what section will show it has relevance ? (in the info box) . I don't think it was skinhead that was blue linked it was New York Hardcore . Granted, Obviously to , I would like to think everyone, knows the importance of New York hardcore and that over 5 million people it takes to have the best of the best become known . However I don't think It, (New York hardcore) Should be blue linked because if someone goes there to continue their knowledge or learning experience of or about Crossover Thrash they won't find much to glean . Its more like the whole mentioning of the "skinhead wing" has nothing to do with the genre . If it were "this influenced the rastafarian wing"

its kind of like so what . Its the bands that were influenced . Hair or not . Its been left there because of some "politics" Im sure but it probably shouldn't be there as it was the bands that were influenced . Not their Hairstyle . Skinhead didn't make people be influenced by a music genre . The music did . Providing knowledge isn't advertisement , true, in some cases people fit things in to a story for sake of promo . It seems "skinhead" is there to make something appear "scary" as if it wasn't good enough to mention the bands only . So I don't think we should remove it but if it comes down to blue link or removal I would say, it goes and Ill or you or We can rewrite the sentence to something Professional . If it stays and isn't blue I would say we could just leave it 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Well theoretically NWOBHM would go to stylistic origins, but since it's not that important I would remove it from the infobox altogether and settle for the reference in the text. As I said, just because an early metalcore band quotes something as an influence (e.g. if someone quoted folk metal this way) doesn't mean it makes up the genre. I think NWOBHM was especially relevant by giving birth to thrash metal, which is a major source of influence on metalcore, but that doesn't warrant a note in the infobox. As for the links, I think NYHC is relevant to crossover thrash simply because it was one of the scenes that contributed to it. If a reader wants to learn more about it, they should have the article at hand.----MASHAUNIX 07:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

well in this case its relative . Its fine where it is . Its not harming the page . One bit . Its relative to the foundation of Metalcore . It still will teach who ever goes there, learns what NWOBHM is and people can look for those influences in the roots . No need to pick things apart and actually make something worse or Obsess over one Blue link when there are far bigger issues with articles . Esp. far bigger issues than NWOBHM which is relative . Whats your issue with it . lol 68.39.152.45 (talk) 15:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually I think it's quite misleading, especially next to NWOAHM, which has a completely different relationship to metalcore. If you read around on the NWOBHM page, it won't give you any ideas to how it is relevant to metalcore. If you don't like links that don't expand the knowledge of the topic, this is one of them. And I'm not in favor of removing it from the article completely (like you did with NYHC in the other case), just moving it out of the spotlight of the infobox. And yes, the article has huge spaces for improvement, but to my knowledge doesn't offer improper information like this elsewhere. I wouldn't obsess over it, but I'd like to reach an agreement on this.----MASHAUNIX 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

really misleading LOL . One relates to the ORIGINS the other to the COMMERCIAL Time period . why would NWOBHM have anything about Anything AFTER it . LOL No one "removed" new York hardcore . Its still there . IN TEXT . like it should be . if it should be there at all . all articles can be improved . there is no "improper" information with NWOBHM being there . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 06:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the link, not the content, of NYHC. But since I can't change your mind about NWOBHM, don't worry; as you've said, another user will remove it if they agree with me.----MASHAUNIX 08:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you think I worry now ? Stick to what you KNOW . Im not "worried" . No actually you said I "removed it" , ""And I'm not in favor of removing it from the article completely (like you did with NYHC in the other case),"" <------Right There . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

This is what I tried to say:

If you don't like links that don't expand the knowledge of the topic, this is one of them. And I'm not in favor of removing it [the link in question] from the article completely (like you did with NYHC [i.e. the link to NYHC] in the other case).

And by saying you shouldn't worry I meant that you've persuaded me about the NWOBHM stuff.----MASHAUNIX 17:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thats cool and all but, Im not trying to "persuade" anyone , At All . I showed how its relative with the basic expectation that anyone can understand . Anyone who understands music . All music is adjusted, passed down, added to, heightened, etc. NWOBHM is Far More relative than straightedge , moshing, youth crew etc. The page is about music . 98% about music . The rest is by products and filler . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

can you show where you learned that , so I can too . Even though I pretty much just did .....

"if you look further down the text on electronicore, it isn't capitalised. genre name aren't capitalised unless they're derived from words that are (such as Nintendo, Christian, Celtic etc.)"

is that really True . ? It seems logical but where can I read about that . I want to know if its true , I feel its Highly Likely . if it is which it seems so, Ill start doing that Immediately and thanks for clarifying. That would be a new "feature" that I didn't know . Where did you learn that, though it makes sense 18:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC) 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

It's outlined here: Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre ("Note: most genres are not proper nouns and should not be capitalized. However, the first word in a list of multiple genres should be capitalized.") This is for artists rather than genres, but I'm sure the guidelines are the same in both cases. You can also easily assume so from looking at featured genre articles like punk rock or heavy metal music. It is often safe to copy the style of featured articles as they get checked for style before being promoted to featured status. You can see in the infobox of heavy metal music that Christian metal and Viking metal for example are capitalised because they are derived from proper nouns.----MASHAUNIX 20:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FAC for xx (album)

Hi! Since you have experience and interest editing music articles, would you be interested in giving a review or commenting at my FAC for the article xx (album)? Dan56 (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

RE: xx (album) FAC

Hi! Could you make a follow-up comment at my FAC for xx (album)? As I originally suspected, it has been found that the now-blocked sock Rationalobserver (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jazzerino) had held a grudge against me and opposed the first and second FAC with bogus claims of plagiarism in order to spite me. If you are neutral on the FAC, please clarify it there. Thank you! Dan56 (talk) 06:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I already said everything I could of any value, and not much has changed for me with this new information. I suppose my stance is weak oppose, but I don't really feel fit to judge the article. Invite users with more experience with the FAC process to give their opinions instead. Best of luck with the article though, and if you need anything else, let me know.----MASHAUNIX 08:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4