User talk:MrMoustacheMM/Archive 3

Absolute Design

The songs from the demo relate to the songs that are on that album.October 010 (talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. What I don't understand is how that is in any way notable? Can you provide a source establishing the notability of those demo songs being re-recorded for an album? Generally songs from a demo being re-recorded for an album is a common and unremarkable practice. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I thought it was notable because a lot of songs from different artists from different albums don't have demos so I'm pointing out something that is rare. As for sourcing it's kind of tough to do so but we all know those are the songs even though I know that's not how wiki works. I do not deny that re-recording songs is common but I think pointing out the demos is for people who don't know the band and want to know more plus the demos caused mass confusion for someone like me when for example the song "Someone Died" was released years before "elbows and knives". The confusion was why wasn't "elbows and knives released earlier" so that is why I decided to clarify stuff to get it out of the way.October 010 (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's really not necessary to add that. That kind of information is great for a site like Metal Archives or a fan site, but it's not that notable for Wikipedia. It might be notable if a demo version of a song with a different name had gotten the band exposure, and that had been documented by reliable sources; then it might be worth adding that sort of info. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Defeated Sanity again

I've semi-protected it again, this time for a month. Another change was made recently that you should look at. --Laser brain (talk) 14:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Discouraged Ones

Why don't we separate Katatonia from the other personnel on that album because this is Katatonia's album and that separate category focuses on them.October 010 (talk) 08:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I mostly deleted it because the other subheading was "Guests", which is wholly inaccurate. If you want to restore the Katatonia subheading, along with a more suitable subheading (say, Additional personnel), I think that would be alright. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:23, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Viva Empitness

Why should their be names listed beside the songs? It looks like the song titles itself. Why not mention "Wait Outside" is on the black sessions so readers could find the actual song? Why not have the credits beside the people's names instead of having their names repeated 500 times?1onei65 (talk) 19:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the first question is explained in my edit summary here.

Mentioning what album the B-side was on is a good idea. I'll add that in.

Your third question makes no sense whatsoever, so I have no answer for you. Please rephrase so that it makes sense. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. Instead of having who wrote the song beside the tracks, why not list that below on the personnel?.1onei65 (talk) 06:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That was also answered in my edit summary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Discussion concerning review sites

Hello. Feel free to read and supply commentary to this discussion concerning several review sites. Thank you. Backtable ^{Speak to me}_{concerning my deeds.} 01:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

KMFDM photo

Hey, just a heads up, I e-mailed Sascha about releasing a picture for use last night, so fingers crossed. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 21:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! I hope he helps out. The KMFDM article is looking awesome, and I'd love to see your work be rewarded with a Featured status. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Now that I've figured out how to upload audio samples, I plan on adding a few to the article. Between those and hopefully a good group photo, it would be getting pretty damn close to being ready to resubmit to WP:FAC. I do think I want to beef up the 2000–07 area some more too. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Immortal Album Reviews

Hello,

I'm writing on behalf of BestBlackMetalAlbums.com, and I've seen that you have removed the references to the album reviews we have made for Immortal's At The Heart Of Winter and Sons Of Northern Darkness albums. I have no inconvenience with this, I greatly appreciate Wikipedia for what it is and even more so the people like you who maintain it's content and keep it as clean and unbiased as possible, but I would like to know in what way we are "unreliable" and what measures must we take in order to be taken seriously and considered reliable as far as Wikipedia Album Reviews are concerned? I have checked the reliablity guidelines and can't really find the answer. We would greatly appreciate it if you contacted us at info AT bestblackmetalalbums DOT com. Thank you for your time!

Sincerely, The B.B.M.A Team 81.39.21.26 (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevant explanations include WP:RS, WP:MOSALBUM#Critical reception and WP:ALBUM/REVSIT. Those are good places to start.

But I'll make a short explanation here. In order to be considered reliable for Wikipedia's purposes, BBMA.com would have to show editorial oversight on its reviews (something I couldn't find evidence of...not that I think you don't have editorial oversight, just that I couldn't find evidence that you do). Your site needs to have a dedicated staff (not just user-submitted reviews...again, I don't know if you have a staff or not, I couldn't find an "About" page talking about your members/staff/etc). And your site would have to be considered as a reliable site by other reliable sites. For example, if Blabbermouth or About.com or Allmusic or newspapers or other reliable sources regularly referred to your site for information, or talked about your site and how good it is, that would be evidence that your site is generally considered reliable. WP:RS specifically states a source should have "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", again, something for which I couldn't find evidence. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Money liner notes

Hey, I'm sure you noticed that I'm pushing KMFDM through WP:FAC now. The initial comment called out a ton of reference problems. I've gotten almost all of them fixed, but there is one spot I'm stuck on. I don't own a copy of the Metropolis release of Money, so I can't add the page numbers for the info about Sascha and En Esch splitting up to do halves of Apart. Can you look in your copy and add the page numbers for me? Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:25, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I can do that. I'll have a look in a couple hours when I get home from work. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done I've always wanted to use that template. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've had to make a few cuts to some text because I could not find a good source for it. But, nothing crippling was removed, so hopefully the first major hurdle for reaching FA has been overcome. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 23:32, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Release date

Hey, I was pulling the release dates because it seemed like good articles and featured articles generally only mention the specific date in the body, and put just the month and year in the lead. I just started looking through some from this list, though, and it doesn't seem like there's a clear standard. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

According to WP:MOSALBUM: "Also to be mentioned [in the lead] are the artist's nationality, the artist's genre, release date and record label". Plus, it just seems like a good piece of info to have, as opposed to a less-specific release month. It adds 2-3 characters to the lead, so it doesn't make the lead overly long or anything. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, cool. I need to read the WP:MOSALBUM page in its entirety. Semi-related, you might be interested to keep an eye on this discussion I started. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, so many guidelines and rules and such! Oh well, between the two of us we'll figure it all out. I'll keep a watch on that talk page, and good catch, I never would have noticed the formatting difference between those (I can barely fill in a cite web template as it is!). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Haha, man, I am learning a ton about the intricacies of it all in the last week. Nikkimaria is a like the grandmaster of referencing details. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

No kidding! Well, good to have someone like that looking over the sources (although don't feel obligated to pull Blabbermouth info just because it's on BM, they're a reliable source, and have been so for years on WP). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing that weird error I introduced. I've got so many KMFDM pages open for editing, because I'm pulling sources and switching stuff around all over the place, that I'm occasionaly losing track of what I'm doing. Keep an eye out for more such mistakes! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries! I've seen all the work you've been doing, the occasional mistake is bound to occur. I'll definitely keep an eye out in case any others show up. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Two points on personnel changes

Hey, I don't see anything in WP:MOSALBUMS about combining production credits into the musicians section if the same person does both (e.g. Sascha producing). Seems like it would be weird to have a production section without him listed there. The other thing, and I don't see that you're doing it, but there is something on that MOS page that needs to be changed. It's the part about using a semicolon (;) to separate a section header you don't want to appear in the table of contents. That semicolon is actually created a weird formatting problem, which makes any page readers read it as if it were the beginning of a definition. So people with seeing problems will have issues. I know it's a weird technical thing, but it's a fairly recent discovery that is sloooooowly being spread around to correct the problem, which is everywhere. Anyway, let me know what you think about the first part. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:52, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Haha, we posted at the same time! As I said on your talk, not a big deal if you want to re-add those personnel to the Production section as well. Also, I had no idea about the semicolon thing. I generally used it to avoid having sub-links in the TOC when they aren't necessary (usually on underground metal albums that only have 4 band members and a producer or 2), but if it causes problems then yeah, it probably should be changed. Not being blind, I wouldn't have known that at all. I'd suggest posting something to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums and getting them to change it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:57, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I forgot to say what seems to be the preferred fix is to just use bold instead. Took me a minute, but I found an explanation of how it works here. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, MrMoustacheMM. You have new messages at J04n's talk page.
Message added 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

J04n(talk page) 01:29, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

KMFDM FAC

So I'm sure you noticed it failed. I was pretty dispirited about it yesterday. I think I'm going to leave the article alone for a while and work on some other stuff, then make another push in a few months. Like I said before, I think there is still more that could be added, especially now that I've seen the great details in some of the re-issued album liner notes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 03:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, you've definitely improved the article a ton, so maybe waiting a few months to come at it fresh is a good idea. I'm sure it'll end up being a featured article soon. By the way, if you would like scans of the re-release liner notes to reference, I can do that. Let me know what albums you want (either here or email me) and I'll see what I can do. Regardless, good work on the article to date! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonight's Decision

Why is the header unnecessary?186.6.45.239 (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? It's an album by Katatonia, which is mentioned in several places in the article (lead, infobox, the inclusion of the Katatonia template, etc). I think it's fairly obvious which band recorded the album when it is clearly stated in the article which band recorded the album. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tonight's Decision 2

Thnx for the correction on my edit on the page.Ingardot (talk) 01:45, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Orchid (album)

should Stefan Guteklint be listed as part of the recording lineup even though he was once a member of Opeth?Ingardot (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

He could probably be listed under another subheading called Additional Personnel, between Opeth and Production. Or, the better solution would be to remove the Opeth header entirely, as it's unnecessary, and just leave it as is.

I also reverted the change listing which guitars who is playing. If they're both playing lead and rhythm, then there's no need to say they're both playing lead and rhythm, "guitar" will do. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

But shouldn't it be indicated who is the lead guitar player of the band and vice-versa?.Ingardot (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

But all you did was indicate that both were both. It's redundant and therefore unnecessary. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for the edit. I had forgotten that I have had this convo with you while mixing it up with a different user but yes I have indicated both because that's what they are. They switch but as listed one does the leads first while the other does the rhythm first.Ingardot (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Track 0

Not sure if you knew this yet, but the track listing template supports displaying track 0 now. I know you had at least one album you wanted it for. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 01:34, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep! I thanked the user who made the change on the talk page, and have already added it to a couple pages. Glad that finally got done! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is there any relationship between you and Mrmoustache14 (talk · contribs)? Your usernames are far too similar for me to think it coincidence. --IllaZilla (talk) 02:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, pure coincidence. The only username I've ever had on WP is MrMoustacheMM. I occasionally forget to log in and either my home or work IP will show instead, but I only have one account on WP. "Mr Moustache" is a song off Bleach by Nirvana, so I've come across the occasional other Mr Moustache out there on the internet (in fact, there must have been one registered here, which is why I appended "MM" to the end of this username). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realize "Mr. Moustache" was the title of a Nirvana song. That explains why there might be several people using it as a screen name. You've been around longer, so my first suspicion upon encountering Mrmoustache14 was that he might be impersonating you or something. Now I see it's coincidence. You two appear to be the only "Mr. Moustache"s on Wikipedia, so you might consider adding {{distinguish}} to the top of your userpage so others will know you're not the same person (as recommended by the username policy). I use a song title as a username myself, though a more obscure one. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure, that seems like a good idea. I wondered where your name came from, good to know! Thanks for checking in and asking! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the addition of links to Metal Wani. The thread is Mpdt and Metal Wani. Thank you. —Fezmar9 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

KMFDM FAC

Hey, do you think you could take a look at the KMFDM FAC and think about how to address some of the issues listed? I've handled almost all of them, but there are a few tricky spots left and any ideas from the only other KMFDM expert on the site would help. Thanks! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 16:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Made a couple of small edits, and replied to the FAC page. I'm hoping that my replies may spark a suggestion to improve the page on those points in some way. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I basically agree with your points. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

You may have missed it, but I opened a discussion a few days ago on Talk:KMFDM about a minor reorganization. Let me know what you think if you get a chance. Thanks. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:43, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Reply left. So did that latest FAC get closed? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, once again closed with no supports and no opposes. I can't figure it out. Maybe it's just because industrial music isn't that popular, no one is interested in reviewing, and when they do, they're not confident enough on the subject to support. It's honestly fairly frustrating, but I'll just try again in a few months. I'll probably wait until 2013 to try again, as I've got 2-3 other articles I'm trying to take to WP:GAN in the near future. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 00:04, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

RE: Ministry "Former members"

Having acknowledged your posts regarding former members on the Ministry page, I'd like to direct you to the page Template:Infobox musical artist which indicates the former members section should be filled on a band page, providing that there are former members of said band. I did not list the former members in the infobox because I know people take unkindly to a large number of people being listed in the infobox, hence my previous two attempts to get around the issue. I won't make any more edits to that page, but felt you could maybe benefit from the knowledge found on the page linked above if you haven't seen it before. Kind regards, Burbridge92 (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy Festivus

		Happy Festivus!
		Here's wishing you a happy Festivus! May you emerge victorious from the Feats of Strength, may your list of Grievances be short, and may your days be filled with Festivus Miracles. —Torchiest talkedits 13:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, and the same to you! Here's hoping 2013 is the year of the Featured KMFDM Article! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Cheers to that! —Torchiest ^talk_edits 18:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misery Index / Bathtub Shitter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Metal

hello, i defenitly think that wikipedia could use some more expansion in the realm of metal. It would be nice for it to provide more in-depth coverage. The erroneous manipulation page is meant to be start towards that goal. Meshuggah rock!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by NHCLS (talk • contribs) 01:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but we also need articles that have reliable sources, are verifiable, don't contain original research or links that violate copyright. So far, the articles you have created have not reached these standards, and are unlikely to have enough information available in reliable sources to ever reach these standards. I recommend reading the links in the top section of your talk page, "Welcome!", from User:JayJay. Additionally, WP:NSONGS gives a list of criteria needed to create articles about single songs. I recommend reading this as well.

I agree, Meshuggah are awesome! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited I Ejaculate Fire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Digital download (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads up

I just thought I'd let you know that I've changed my username from "Davidravenski" to "TheDethklokGuy" to remain more anonymous. I'm just letting you know to avoid any possible confusion because you're one of the few wiki users who I regularly see editing the Dethklok pages and who I know. TheDethklokGuy (talk) 04:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! New name, same great edits! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment about Infobox album template

Hi. Could you add your two cents on this issue regarding the infobox album template? Dan56 (talk) 21:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Mudvayne

Thanks for adding to the conversation on the talk page for that Mudvayne article! If you have time, there's another issue on that page I'm trying to handle. The article has a citation from a newspaper saying the album received good reviews,but I'm really finding nothing but bad to average reviews for the album. It has a low score on metacritic as well. If you have time, It'd be great if I could find any backing for that. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I'll take a look when I have some time, in the mean time can you tell me where in the article this ref is used? (section and sentence would be a great help) MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's in citation 11 for the Boston Herald. "The End of All Things to Come received positive reviews when it was released in 2002.". The problem is that I can't even find any positive reviews as most reviews are average (2.5/5, 3/5, etc.) or low (two 2/5s, and a 3/10). Closest thing to a strong review is the B- but that's not even really strong, y'know? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I started a new section about it on the talk page. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:13, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

re: Black Sabbath (album)

This clearly says #243, not 241: [1]. Apology accepted. ChakaKong^talk 01:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Apparently RS released the original list in 2003 or 2004 and an updated Top 500 list in 2009. I was unaware of this and I apologize if my above comment sounded uncivil in any way. At any rate, there's a discussion about it happening here. ChakaKong^talk 02:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Watershed

Twas not poorly worded as it's true that the lineup on that album lasted till the next.99.229.83.117 (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"...making this recording lineup also to last up till "Heritage"." That's not English, it's just a string of words that happen to be from the English language. It makes no sense, and I feel quite justified in removing it. There was also no reason to remove the information given in the article, as someone may read the Watershed article without reading the Ghost Reveries article, and thus might like to know that the album does not feature certain former members. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I do not recall adding "to" in the edit I did but if so then it was truly a mistake. Now according to you, you must add information from a previous article on to the next, just to clarify the article itself? I don't know about that. 99.229.83.117 (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no "must", but I see nothing wrong with giving information like that on both articles, because as I said, someone may read the one article without reading the other. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, that still makes no sense to bring up past info on an article.99.229.83.117 (talk) 09:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are unable to understand what I am saying. I don't know how else to explain it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 07:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)