User talk:Navnløs/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Wrong user

You may want to repost this: [[1]]; here User_talk:Twsx. This is nothing to do with me now. Nouse4aname (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On another note, Arcturus is great. [?]

Thanks for alert! But what you mean by this phrase? I refer to Arcturus... Cannibaloki (talk) 21:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Eric Greif

Please stop restoring unsourced material whose removal is completely justifed by WP:V. It is not being binned: also as is standard WP:V practice, I've moved the unsourced version to a workspace where everything unsourced is tagged - see Talk:Eric Greif and Talk:Eric Greif/Workspace - and finding sourcing is an ongoing project for anyone who wants to help. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that works for me thanks. I just didn't want some of that material (which I know can be sourced) to be lost. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Illdisposed will be deleted?

Because the article is being considered for deletion? You can not edit this article? Exclusion is not the most recommended since the band is very underground and difficult to obtain information about the same! I wonder if I can add excerpts of the biography of the band taken from Web sites but making reference of the same, it is possible? Cannibaloki (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism warning

Please stop vandalizing the NWOAHM article by blanking it, otherwise I have to report your actions to an administrator.--  LYKANTROP  20:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are the vandal and I will report you if you continue. Not to mention you are in violation of WP:CON for even creating that page (it's meant to be a redirect) and you are also violating WP:EW. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know I took part of an edit war. But you stared and took a part too. If you tell me that I break the consensus, I can tell the same thing to you. In the first paragraph of WP:VANDAL: "...The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking,..etc. Telling me that the sources are "wrong" is ridiculous. They are proffesional music crtitcs websites. You think that a consensus of some editors on metalcore talkpage makes a cration of that page prohibited? You are interpreting WP:CON wrongly. WP:5: "...any writing you contribute can be mercilessly edited...". You have no arguments against me. What you do is just blanking the page without an explanation = vandalism.--  LYKANTROP  21:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious?? You must be kidding. I'm not page blanking, I'm redirecting. Do you know the difference. I'm incredulous right now. There's a huge difference. I'm not vandalizing anything. You, however, are. Wait for the conversation at the metalcore page to be done. You've obviously misinterpreted wikipedian rules. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop!

Don't revert again for another 24 hours or an admin will block you. Just a friendly notice. I won't block you personally but I'm sure that article is watched by at least 1 or 2 admins. You shouldn't have continued to revert, Daniel. But anyway, I'll protect it. I don't know of any policy like that. I suppose you could ask on WP:IRC. Sorry I couldn't be of anymore help. (Remember: If he reverts again do not rv yourself, okay? And don't canvass to get someone else to rv either) Message me if you need anything else. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 21:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re:NWOAHM

I have heard it being referenced casually like dark metal and other such genres, with LoG as its example. I don't think its a real genre, 'coz what i hear is straightaway metalcore. I am not really a person who knows much about it though, as a.) I ain't american and b.) not listened to enough metalcore or "nwoahm". But hey, a handful of bands don't make a splash, let alone a wave! Welt^anschaunng 18:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

More Illdisposed

Here is the content of the page, is in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia? I think it is the minimum to which the article not be removed.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Krisiun logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Krisiun logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

TragicSerenades

So whats new :p I am not sure where to write on your talk page. TragicSerenades (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Running Wild (band). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the discussions and the only consensus about genres is that you stop editing them. Since my return to the project I have been keeping an eye on all the blacklisted editors that I was not familiar with. Your constant false edit summaries, make-believe consensus tall tales and persistent edit warring have me wondering why you have not been permanently blocked already. I am going to AGF just one more time that you are going to change your ways. If you are secretly hoping to be blocked then so be it I will arrange that. But if you want to make a positive contribution here then just say the word and I will teach you how. I have zero patience for editors with personal agendas. And that is what you are. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 21:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I have no agenda except the betterment (is that a word?) of wikipedia. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You have issued warnings vandalism warnings to numerous editors for changing a line break into a comma. You identified their edits as vandalism and even issued warnings for what is clearly not vandalism. The key word there is numerous. I observed you revert no less than six separate IP editors on the same article over the course of two days. If numerous editors are trying to contribute. And the only editor reverting these similar changes is you. Then you are the only problem here. I could really care less how many good edits you make. Or how many good edits you think you make. When it comes to band genres and how they are formatted, you edit based on personal POV and based on personal agenda. A personal agenda that even had plastered across you own user page. If you want to edit "on the edge" try unencyclopedia. "On the edge" benefits no one here. I do not know the editor you mentioned. That person joined the project during my hiatus. I see where he posted an RfA message on your talk page. On April Fools Day. Perhaps there is a message there that you are missing. I have told you what will happen to you if you continue with your agenda. It's really up to you. Many editors using commas as their formatting choice versus you reverting them all. There is one edit war being instigated there. And it is you that is pushing it. Try keeping your opinions to yourself and edit positively for a change. If you don't want to get blocked, leave take your agendas somewhere else. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey yeah I suppose there is some goth/doom elements in that album. I hate having to say that though. I kind of consider it Black/Goth metal ...like MoonSpell if anything. Yeah Celtic Frost is my favorite band.As well as Hellhammer and I love black metal. I am also a huge fan of Ozzy and Black Sabbath. I'll just give you a few other bands I'm a big fan of ...dark Funeral,Behemoth,Tsjuder,Behexen,Mutiilation,Pest(sweden),Mercyful Fate,Morbid Angel,Vader,Xasthur,Tenebrae Semitarius,Istidraj,Surrender of Divinity,Marduk, EnthronedTragicSerenades (talk) 23:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Firefox redirect

I really don't see what light you saw. On Talk:Firefox, the vast majority of users think that that page should link to Mozilla Firefox. We concluded on that page that 99% percent of internet users mean Mozilla Firefox, not some other Firefox. It is much better for the rest 1% to fallow one more link (from Mozilla Firefox to Firefox (disambiguation)), then to made all 99 percent fallow the link from Firefox (disambiguation) to Mozilla Firefox. —Stijak (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I really, really, really don't care. Either way is fine with me. Some would argue that the movie Firefox is just as notable if not more so, than the browser. Do what you want, though. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit wars and ignoring WP:3RR on 2 separate articles

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Running Wild (band). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cynic (band). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 216.126.99.132 (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brutality!

Yeah. The world often convinces me that stuipity has no boundaries. Actually, sorry that I said your're vandal, I was upset. That is cause we both are stubborn... But anyway - generally - calm down sometimes a bit man...  LYKANTROP  21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

All right. ... I just thought - if you don't like your username (Navnløs/Blizzard Beast) - that is not a problem: Wikipedia:Changing username. May the Force be with you!--  LYKANTROP  21:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that you just don't care... but it actually is a bit confusing, cause you have different signature than it is in the article histories. I mean - it actually does not matter - it would have sence to change it just if you want to have more order in it and like that. It depends on what you want. I am just a stupid perfectionist, tha is why I told you.. :) I see that you also have some problems with the policy :) - I know that  LYKANTROP  16:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that some policies should be different. Wikipedia and good editors are too vulnerable.  LYKANTROP  22:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:

Mmmmm. No, I don't really care. I've been editing on wikipedia for a long time and I've seen a lot here on wikipedia. I happen to think that the line breaks are better suited for genres, but I'm not going to go and waste time talking about it with a bunch of people.Hackser 22:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

*feeling sick*

I'm sick of wikipedia. I almost don't want to edit on it anymore. It seems all these frustrations I have with other users stems from this line break vs. comma break issue. I hate it. They should just decide on something. Then we could all edit according to the rules. I don't have time for shit pointless shit. I just had a great week. One of my friends I haven't seen in two years came to visit with her friends and decided to hang out with me for a day at the park. She used to really like me and I didn't thin she would anymore. I actually don't know what the hell she sees in me in the first place. She's completely hot and seems normal. Anyways, we hung out and I found out she did indeed harbor feelings for me and...well, we had a great time in that park. Then she left, but promised to visit more often. I'm too happy (well, more like I'm in a very contemplative mood mostly) to care about all this crap on wikipedia. I got better shit to do. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I'll shoot myself. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your 5th 3RR block in 6 months. Please keep in mind that it is very likely that the next time, you will find yourself blocked for a week or more. If you find yourself disagreeing with someone, talk it out on talk pages, not in reverts. --B (talk) 23:49, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I try to, but some people just won't listen to reason. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Try harder. B is a big softie. I'm not when it comes to revert warring and I'll block you indef if you can't learn to edit without breaking the 3RR. I strongly suggest you take up a 1RR vow in future. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Attention

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Navnløs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't expect to be unblocked but I wanted to bring attention to the following.

Decline reason:

I couldn't care a fig for your lame excuse for being disruptive and disregarding the expected editing norms. Be grateful I didn't see the report at AN3 because I would have indef blocked you. Please note that you are now on your last chance. Revert warriors will not be tolerated. If you can't learn to edit without being disruptive and edit warring then you won't be editing at all.... — Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, geez, Spartaz, despite how you feel about me, that was a bit incivil. I didn't make an excuse. Did you read my unblock thing? I didn't (and don't) expect to be unblocked. I know how it works here on wikipedia. I only did that to bring attention to the fact that other editors are warring. I happen to work for the betterment of wikipedia and I detest vandals. I've made a lot of enemies and they all wait for me to trip up and then pounce on me. Not making an excuse, that's just how it is. Even though I'm not the instigator I'm the one who always get blocked for edit warring. In the future, perhaps I'll just let the other editors war it out. Idk. I'm hardly disruptive. You talk to me like you would a common vandal. A revert warrior? Perhaps. I like to think I'm keeping the peace. And every time I get blocked because of edit warring on certain pages, those pages still end up the way I prefer them. So, obviously (though edit warring is wrong, yes) i can't be doing something all that wrong. The pages I edit war over and get blocked over turn out the way I want them anyways, because other editors agree with me. I realize I shouldn't edit war, but I do take "ignore all rules" (within reason of course) to heart and try to keep wikipedia safe from the people who would fuck it up. There are those who disagree with me, but in the end I've always had more friends on wikipedia than enemies. My true nature shines through and I may not be the best editor and I do in fact edit war from time to time, but most of my edits help wikipedia and I take that job seriously. Not that I think this conversation will do anything for you. I'm just saying it. In the future I will be more careful on how I act. Mostly because of my record. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You, Spartaz, should be able to appreciate my position somewhat as a "perenially stressed" and "opinionated" person. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I may not be able to edit right now (as I'm blocked) but I have been watching the edits on Cynic (band), Cannibal Corpse and Amon Amarth (the pages on which I was "warring"). Nowe I was blocked for warring and making sure the original format (line breaks for genre delimiters) stayed in place. Niderbib and some ip addresses continue to war on those pages and are continually reverted by others (such as User:The Haunted Angel and User:Landon1980; both of whom have my greatest gratitude). Now Landon has already expressed his concern that these IP addresses are sockpuppets (of Niderbib perhaps). It would seem they are. Every single one of those IP addresses have only a few edits and they are all on those threee aforementioned pages. I know I can't be unblocked because of this but I wanted to bring attention to it. Someone has been using sockpuppets on those pages for a while now and I suspected it as well. The similarites between the sockpuppets (and also Niderbib) are astounding. All of them give horrible edit summaries that are either lies or not true, to justify their changing the genre delimiters to comma breaks. Now I believe there's no reason to make this change (which is why I was reverting) and apparently The Haunted Angel and Landon1980 agree. Other users have been reverting those ip addresses and Niderbib as well, and you will find this if you look in the histories of those pages I mentioned. They may be edit warring on other pages as well, I don't know. I only watched those three pages. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal#Genre delimiters

Try to chill. It is not all that hard to just resist reverting an article three times. It does not matter matter whether you're in the right or not. If you run into users who are apparently unwilling or incapable of discussing things over, do not give in to temptation and just do as they do, revert as they do and getting blocked as they do. Edit warring is never a solution to anything. You can always ask other editors or administrators for assistance. I have initiated the above discussion and you're invited to take part once your block is over. Do try to stay calm. --Bardin (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

TragicSerenades

So what have you been up to lately? TragicSerenades (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)