User talk:Metalstyle

Opeth

Are you sure you know what you are talking about? You can get blocked if you revert my edits more than three times. If you don't like it the ask someone to copyedit it. It was just under a peer review, which is a good think on here. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How long have you been on wikipedia? You obviously don't know what you are talking about. take a good look at WP:LEAD that should clear some things up for you. I will fix that quote but other than that it is fine. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Boy oh boy, I didn't know I was vandilising. Especially due to the fact that I wrote most of that page. DT has nothing to do with Opeth. PT had a member that produced and was never in the band. All the other bands do have to deal with Opeth because current members of Opeth were or are in those bands. Former members' former band's by far have nothing to do with the band. And how exactly are DT related? They have no members—current or former—that are in common. I don't think I am the one vandilising here. Cheers, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 03:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean thay are related with Opeth. That means thay are related with Mikael. They are not collaberating with Opeth, thay are collaberating with Mikael. Once the project has a name, then we can add that, but that still doesn't mean we can add DT and PT. Were you just posting on my talk page under an IP address? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because he is in a band (which is UNNAMED) with members of other band's, that does not mean those two bands are related. If that was the case, every band in the world would be associated. Axenrot was in those bands. Belive me, you do not want to continue this. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am being civil, you are making this much harder than it should be. I'm sorry if he is not associated, that info came from an unreliable source. As for age, you could have figured that out on my userpage. I don't care how old you are, and I'm sure nobody learns about Opeth in school, so I don't know where education comes in. I'm not comprimising, simply because you are wrong. I can get an admin involved if you want, and I know he will side with me because he knows what I am talking about. —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I had no problem contacting an admin. I've collaberated with them. The problem is that there are none patrolling useless edits right now. Judging by your maturity you should know how to sign you comments. And if you were really as mature as you claim to be, wouldn't you quit picking on the teenage editor while you are an adult. Hmmmm.... —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Really???????????? —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 04:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi- could this discussion please be continued here so that other interested parties can easily see and take part in it. J Milburn (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Flat String Music

A tag has been placed on Flat String Music 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, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cenarium (talk) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Hi, the recent edit you made to Flat String Music 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. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

im constructing the full page. let me finish it before you delete it. It is about a record label.

The recent edit you made to Flat String Music constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC))

I will not remove the speedy delete tag and neither will you. It is a violation of policy. Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 23:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of FlatString Music

A tag has been placed on FlatString Music 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, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance 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 (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Cenarium (talk) 23:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Crowz

A tag has been placed on Crowz, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the article and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Per your request, I have changed the rationale for speedy deletion of Crowz from empty page (A1) to non-notable band (A7). Please consult WP:MUSIC for more information. Thank you. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Slipknotcrowzunreleasedeg8.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Slipknotcrowzunreleasedeg8.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Crowz

Trust me dude, I am what you may call an obsessive fan haha. I have like 6 books related to the band. Over 50 magazines, all their CDs and DVDs as well as tonnes of unofficial CDs and everything including interviews and biographies. None of these include so much of a mention of Crowz. The only mention I have ever found of this, is on those websites you have brought up. They are fan websites, fair enough they may believe that information is true. But you cannot post information on Wikipedia without a verifiable source. See WP:VER. I personally believe yes they may have been in the studio post MFKR recording new stuff but then they got signed and later released Slipknot. There are no official sources claiming this title or track listing. Oh, and just because you can download a collection of tracks that somebody says is "Crowz" in a torrent doesn't make it true at all. REZTER ^TALK ø 23:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Find me Crowz on that website, give me the direct link. I don't agree that it should be mentioned on Wikipedia at all... it's a complete lie. REZTER ^TALK ø 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Haha, that's really funny that you should say that. You think I'm jealous because other people may own this release? First of all show me solid proof that this actually exists, and was officially released by Slipknot. Secondly, why would I get jealous over a thing like that, you're being childish. Thirdly, I am here to help Wikipedia and ensure that all information regarding Slipknot is true, or at least BELIEVED to be true, using sources which can be trusted, now go find me one source that can be trusted that talks of Crowz. REZTER ^TALK ø 10:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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) 04:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Opeth is not blues...

I don't know where that comes from.. but Opeth are defenetly not a blues band, nor is the album Damnation a blues album. Please, show any cites you have from reputable reviewers/sources that mention blues and Opeth... Take a look at All Music.com's Opeth page, where does it say blues?? Honestly, you hear like Buddy Guy, BB King and that kind of stuff in Opeth's music? Liking the blues is one thing, but incorporating it into their music is another. I've heard Opeth called 100 different things, but none of them is blues. I guess you equate slow accoustic parts to the blues... I suppose if its that big of a deal to you for the article to say 'blues', we can put it to a consensus vote at the Opeth talk page(as long as there are valid citations backing up that claim) but I am not sure that many people would agree with you. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I like how you know all about how much I like bands... but yeah, I've been into Opeth for like 10 years(my former drummer worked at Century Media) I saw them live and met Mikael and Peter on their first US tour in 2001 at the Whiskey with Angel Dust and Nevermore, and got my original copy of Orchid signed by both. Of course I have Lamentations and Ghost Reveries... I rewrote the entire article, and participated in the Featured Article process for it. But anyway, this is not about who is the biggest fan.... it is an encyclopedia that needs references. Facebook is not a valid reference. Self-published sources are not valid references. I reccomend seeing WP:V and WP:RS to get caught up. Its not about having "the PERFECT proof" of your argument, its about sourcing.

I cant see how you call "Creedence" ot "Isolation Years" blues songs, I don't think you have any idea what the blues is, from a musical standpoint. Where in ANY of Opeth's music is a I-IV-V progression, or anything even remotely similar? Where are the turnarounds? the dominant chords? the 8 and 12 bar patterns?? I studied the blues at Musicians Institute under Keith Wyatt (google him), so I believe I have a good handle on what the blues is.

I can tell you are new to Wikipedia, but please sign your comments with four tildes, as the message above says. When posting on someones talk page, try to post consecutive messages in the same section, naming the section after what you are talking about.

I will revert "blues" from the article, unless you provide a valid source from a reputable third party reviewer, OR put it to a consensus vote. That is the way things work here at Wikipedia. Thanks, Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS for info on personal websites. Although I do agree that in certian instances, like official bio's, self-published sources should be allowed, that is not how it works here. Bottom line is put it to a vote, provide a valid source from a neutral third party, or find somthing else to crusade for. I mean honestly, is it worth all this trouble just to put 'blues' in an article about a progressive death metal band? How about writing somthing, or elevating an article? Fixing somthing that has not already been through the ringer, and is a featured article? Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't seem to understand... I dont know how many times I have to say it, but this is not about what I think. This is not about my opinion. This is about sourcing. If you would take a minute and actually read any of the policy links I provided, you'd see that Wikipedia has guidelines. "The proof is in the sound" is an absurd statement. The sound is totaly subjective. This is the last time I will go over this with you, but WITHOUT A VALID THIRD PARTY SOURCE OR CONSENSUS VOTE, blues will be reverted from the article. Opeth is a Featured Article, which means it has been through peer reviews, GA and FA processes.

Its obvious from your talk page that you are new to Wikipedia and its guidelines. It seems you have had the same problem with another article discussed above. Please take a minute and check out the Welcome page which explains important guidelines here. But more importantly see Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources - I don't make the rules, I just write here. Skeletor2112 (talk) 05:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you just don't get it at all. A t-shirt store is not a reliable source. A torrent download site? not a reliable source. Page not found? not a reliable source. Interview with the keyboardist who says he likes blues? Nope. "Mininova"(what ever that is) reprinting the lead of this article - and you say "before you got involved with it"- dude, I wrote that whole part(aside from your 'blues' contribution)-reprints of Wikipedia are not a source.

I've never heard of Pitchfork Media, wether they are reliable or not is questionable. They mention blues rock alongside "Indian raga, pastoral tips, and acid-tinged freakers" - should those all be added, too? Its obvious from all of the cites used in the article (49 total, of which zero mention Opeth as having blues elements) that this is not a widespread belief.(see below)

And calling someone a nazi is a personal attack, per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I could care less who you are, you are the "founder of flat string music" whatever that is.... a Canadian accoustinc indie label?? I am suposed to "suck up to you bigtime"? Grow up, you could be Dave Mustaine and I still would revert blues from the Opeth article. I too have a life beyond my computer screen, in fact I only edit while at work, so I get paid while writing here. Do you?

This whole argument is absurdly retarded. I will cut and paste the policy pages so maybe you will actually read them here.

From Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources:

Reliable sources

Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources.

All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is.

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

For a guideline discussing the reliability of particular types of sources, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS). Because policies take precedence over guidelines, in the case of an inconsistency between this page and that one, this page has priority, and WP:RS should be updated accordingly. To discuss the reliability of specific sources, consult the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

From Jimbo Wales, Wiki-founder, taken from Wikipedia:NPOV#Undue_weight:

• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

No mention in any of the article's 49 existing sources, and just one from "Pitchfork Media" is certainly an "extremely small minority". If you wanna keep on arguing over this, find someone else to argue with. I'd rather spend my time here writing, and I am hard at work on another article. Skeletor2112 (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

lol.. It goes on and on... You just dont get it, man. I DONT MAKE THE RULES, I just edit here. You are arguing with me over somthing I have no control over. I love how you assume to know what my job consists of, and that I edit here at Wikipedia in place of working. Of course that is absurd, I edit while waiting for work to come in, and I'll leave it at that. You seem to be a very vindictive person, however, saying things like you want to see me get "busted" for contributing to Wikipedia. ??? It looks like you had the same problem with insulting the user REZTER above this post.

You say "like I had previously predicted you gave some other hilariuos excuse as to why it doesnt fit your own personal opinion of what "is" and what "isn't"." Uh, I have no control over what our founder Jimbo Wales lays out here. I've never met the man. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and I don't make them. My personal opinion is of no value here.

You say "you see yourself as having more authority over Opeth than they do themselves." Really man, thats what you think I am doing? Without stooping to your level of personal attacks and name calling, I have an honest question: is there a learning disabillity involved here? Do you not comprehend english? Can you read WP:SPS? WP:V? WP:N?? Really, there is nothing more I can say on that... if you can't understand that by now, I honestly question wether or not you ever will comprehend the above linked guidelines.

"Its hard to see how you see yourself as having more authority over Opeth than they do themselves." lol, again, you seem to think I came up with WP:SPS. I wish I was all knowing and all seeing and the writer of every wiki-policy, but I just write stuff here about metal bands, I have nothing to do with the rules and guidelines.

I find it amusing you call me an "asshole" for liking Dave Mustaine. He is an excellent songwriter and guitarist, sure I like Mustaine. But I urge you to tread lightly with the personal attacks, as they are not tolerated here.

"Your are not in Opeth, you never were, and you never will be. But I guess taking militia control over the Opeth wikipedia page is your only way into the band right?" No I am not in Opeth. Gee, that is a profound statement, sir, you really got me there. I am in a band, and I am quite happy doing my own music. In fact I think Opeth has been going downhill since My Arms, Your Hearse. But please, lay off the attacks and insults, there is no reason for it.

"Someone actually had the balls to tell me Flat String Music did not exist? Can you please tell me, since you know everything, how that is true?" Wow, that statement proves that you didn't care to even read the notices left on your talk page. From the looks of it, your articles were deleated as they met the criteria for speedy deletion. if you would read that policy, you could answer your own question, or at least understand how absurd the statement above is. Anyway, take that up with the people that left those messages. It's got nothing to do with me- although if you do I pity those guys, they will have a hard time hammering...

I couldn't care less about Flat String Music, or that you "talk to the owner for hours" and "fly up there" - what are you trying to acomplish? Is that how you say you are in a band, or that you are rich, or somthing? Well, thanks for the info? Am I suposed to envy you now? Its useless to keep arguing your case on that article to me, because I didn't have anything to do with that article. I assume that since there is no 'flat string music' website, there were no sources in the article? (and myspace is not a valid source) a quick yahoo search shows 4 results, 2 are here at wikipedia, 2 are on myspace. Not a valid source in sight.

I do find it funny that you say here that you are the "founder and owner of Flat String Music", and just below you post with your IP adress, which you used as a sock puppet to back up your own argument, saying in the Opeth history that "skeletor2112, im afriad your incorrect. Metalstyle is half right, Akerfeldt's solos do follow blues templates". It always helps to back up your own assertions with a fake identity, right? So which is it: are you the founder and owner or just an artist who's back catalogue is getting a rerelease?

Cite from reliable third party source (Bass Player Magazine) regarding genres:

• [1]

Cite from reliable third party source (All Music Guide) regarding genres:

• [2]

Roadrunner records: "Watershed combines elements of modern metal, prog rock, free jazz and hints of European folk music":

• [3]

I honestly have no desire to argue this stupidity anymore. All of this over the inclusion of a single word. I said it before, but it is obvious from the lack of citations that you are the only one championing this cause, and for what? is it all some scheme to advertise your music, or somthing? What great personal interst do you have in including blues on the Opeth page? If it is that big of a deal to you, check out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and file a dispute. I am happy to put this to arbitration, although it seems you think that "99.99999% of the people on here are exactly like yourself and need act like dictators". I can only laugh... Skeletor2112 (talk) 07:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)