User talk:Retrohead/Archive 5

Review

Do you have any interest in reviewing my FAC? I have reviewed two of yours. BollyJeff | talk 12:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, taking a look right away.--Retrohead (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: FAC comments

Hi Retrohead, I'm very busy in real life these days and I don't think I will have enough time to do a comprehensive review. I might take a look at the article in a couple of days, but I don't promise you anything. --Niwi3 (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. I will try, but it would really be good to get another set of eyes somehow. I might know that its not perfect, but not necessarily know how to fix it, if you know what I mean. BollyJeff | talk 21:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I invite someone else to help perhaps?--Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean; to review it? Certainly, but no canvassing. BollyJeff | talk 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to review the prose and catch some potential errors you've missed.--Retrohead (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you just can't invite lots of people, or those who you know are going to vote in your favor no matter what. BollyJeff | talk 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumbass IP

What to do about this idiot who keeps posting the same crap, every few months, since last year. Any way of getting a block on him? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Mac, I gave him last warning, and if he evades it I'll make an administrator request to block him. Thanks for informing me and have a good day.--Retrohead (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking sample requests again

Hi Retrohead! My desktop is back to working so I'm taking music sample requests again if you need any. Thanks. Erick (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for writing me back Erick, and good to hear your desktop is in good condition again. I don't have anything on board right now, but I'll call you if I'm in need. Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica Reload genre?

It seems to me that you are in denial of having the Hard-rock genre on Metallica's Reload. I think we can all agreed that the Reload album is clearly Hard rock by many Metallica fans and even music critics and music sources states that the album is Hard rock. I think you are not a fan of that label, however, Load and Reload albums moved Metallica to Hard rock territory. If Megadeth Risk says Hard rock, clearly Metallica Reload is Hard rock too, not just Heavy metal. I love how you are defending the Heavy-metal label, just to make it look tough on that record but many and many Metallica fans and music critics will agree that the album is Hard rock. Let me know what you think about this? Metallica is a Heavy metal act, yes, but not everything they do is Heavy metal, they explore other genres too.( Mikeis1996 (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mikeis1996, it doesn't matter what I think, but whether you have references for your addition. The one you added, the Rolling Stone review, says like all Metallica albums, Re-Load is strongly rooted in the group's apocalyptic metal sound. In the sentence you're citing, "it presents hard-rock fortification against SoCal ska lite and scary pop phenomena such as the Spice Girls", it reffers to Metallica, not Reload.--Retrohead (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kill 'Em All

Congrats on the FA dude! Glad to see it passed! :) Hopefully the Black album can soon follow! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Danny. I've heard there will be a new book on that album, so hopefully you'll have a well detailed research to help you.--Retrohead (talk) 07:51, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I have ordered the book and will put it to good use very soon! DannyMusicEditor (talk) 19:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again

Retro style
Thank you, user alluding to Retro style, for quality articles such as Megadeth, performed in collaboration, for precision, discussion, following mediation and archiving of ...And Justice for All, for defining yourself by contributions alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were the 966th recipient of my Pumpkin Sky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precious again, your Master of Puppets today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago, you were recipient no. 966 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Chrome Division/1

Any intention of notifying me of this, or would that be too much work? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, to be fair, I loved it last time you decided not to notify me that you were trying to delist articles I nominated, so maybe it's completely understandable. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to dispute it- the article's out of date and I don't currently have the time or inclination to update it. It's just very, very frustrating to not be notified. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and I'm very sorry for my negligence.--Retrohead (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer's "Undisputed Attitude" is not a Studio Album.

I don't know where anybody got the insane idea that Slayer's Undisputed Attitude is a studio album, but it simply is not correct. If you label it as a studio album, that means Slayer will have twelve studio album releases instead of the proper eleven. And to prove even further that it is not a studio album, on SLAYER.NET (the band's official website) it states that Repentless is their ELEVENTH studio album. If you do the math, you'll realise that if you add up their discography including Undisputed Attitude, that Repentless would come out as their twelfth and not their eleventh. To make another point, Undisputed Attitude is compilation album because it is a compilation of different songs from a majority of different artists, thus making it a compilation album and not a studio album.

1. Show No Mercy
2. Hell Awaits
3. Reign In Blood
4. South Of Heaven
5. Seasons In The Abyss
6. Divine Intervention
7. Diabolus In Musica
8. God Hates Us All
9. Christ Illusion
10. World Painted Blood
11. Repentless

Again, coupled with the fact that Undisputed Attitude is obviously NOT a studio album even by what most people think is "definition", as you can clearly see, the discography lineup and proof from SLAYER.NET indicates that Undisputed Attitude is incorrectly labelled as a "Studio Album" 104.179.109.150 (talk) 17:26, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Tyrrell

Would you be willing to review Susan Tyrrell's page, I'd like to nominate it for a GA. Thank you!--Avario87 (talk) 12:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Avario87. I wouldn't nominate Susan Tyrrell for GA if I were your place because it requires some additional copyediting. I can copyedit it if you want me to, but in its current condition, it would likely be quickly failed.--Retrohead (talk) 14:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Repentless

Hey! Been a while. I have not bought the CD, at least not yet. I halfheartedly looked for it when it came out, but oddly did not see it (heard it wasn't that great though, so I gave up... I might see if I can find it used in the future) Anyway, at least at this time, I can't add any of the liner note stuff. Sorry about that.

As you might have noticed, I haven't been really active lately, so I'm kinda out of the loop. Whatever happened with your Master of Puppets FA nomination?

take care --L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problem, I'll see if anyone else has it. I heard it will debut in the Top 5 on the Billboard 200, but it seems people prefer the MP3 format nowadays. About Puppets, it finally reached FA status, and so did Kill 'Em All (from the first attempt). Now I'm vying to get Lightning to FA, but that will likely be months from now.--Retrohead (talk) 10:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the MP3 thing is kind of a shame (though I do the MP3 thing also). It's nice to have a physical album though. A collection of vinyl or CDs looks so much more impressive than just thousands of files on iTunes or whatever. I'm undecided on whether to buy the album at this point. Haven't really heard enough from it to convince me to get it. Might get the new Children of Bodom and/or Queensryche next week when they come out though... Not sure yet

I think I'll take a look through Lightning, see if there's anything that catches my eye. It's a shame those FAs take so long, but then jaded, inconsistent contributors like me are part of the problem. Bureaucracy, egos and popularity contests are the other part. Happy editing and good luck with the Lightning FA--L1A1 FAL (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've ordered the vinyl on Amazon, but I'll have it in late October, because it takes some time to ship it from the US to the Balkans. It's a pitty that record stores don't stock Slayer records here, appart from Reign in Blood and Undisputed Attitude (surprised they had the second one). Thanks for the notes on Lightning, I'll start addressing them right away. I'll call you if I need input on the FA nomination. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 10:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I bought the regular edition CD today along with the new Queensryche. The liner notes are rather lacking (no songwriting credits, and no way to verify Holt's leads on track 1), but I added a cite in the personnel section.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:27, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I just made a small addition to Endgame (Megadeth album) regarding the album's developing legacy, at the end of the critical reception section. Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think? Thanks!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked it, it reads well. I did minor c/e on the first sentence, as I think the author was referring to the album as a peak of the post-Capitol Megadeth. By the way, I think we've missed Dystopia's front cover a bit. The band's website displays a cover with the album title in digitized font on the right.--Retrohead (talk) 07:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Post-capitol is what I meant to imply with that, so thanks for checking that. I noticed the slight difference in the album cover as well, but I wasn't overly concerned about it at this time. There's actually a similar issue on Rust in peace (pictured cover is the remix/remaster cover because on the original the title is in a larger font, while the font size was reduced on the rerelease)

Have you heard "Fatal Illusion"? I thought it was pretty good, and while I got very skeptical following the last record, I'm thinking this might be pretty good. Also, I'm gonna try to pop over to RTL from time to time to see if there is anything that I feel can be tweaked or fixed or whatever. Anyway, thanks again.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have, and I agree it sounds better than anything on Super Collider. The vocals can be a bit irritating, but I guess that comes with age.--Retrohead (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater album review

You should probably close that - the nominator appears to have abandoned the article and has made no progress on it in over two months, plus hasn't responded to your review. It's a lot better than when it started, but I doubt it's good enough and I think you should fail it. It's totally your decision, but I saw all this and thought I should put my cent in. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 00:29, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice Danny, I will close it some time today. I wanted to ask, did you get the Metallica book you needed? If you have, does it has something that should be added to the article?--Retrohead (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ATM that project is abandoned, if you don't pick it up I will someday, but I'm not ready yet. I was totally unaware of how flooded with problems it was. Ugh. -.- I shoulda opened Peer Review for it first. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 20:39, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing advice

For an article with magazine sources to be GA, do they have to list the page numbers? That would take forever on this article and I'd have quite a hard time being able to find them. If pages aren't necessary, then I'd easily be able to fix this up for GA. dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 21:06, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you have url links to the article, I guess not. But if you're citing a printed source (not available on Internet), listing pages (or chapters) is obligatory. At first look at the article you're planning to improve, it seems you'll have full hands of work. Good luck.--Retrohead (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, say I find a URL for one of these (a direct shot of the article used for citation), but there's no page number listed. Would that generally be seen as bad? dannymusiceditor ^{~talk to me!~} 03:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, if you have link to Google Books, or some website that shows the pages scanned, page number shouldn't be a big deal.--Retrohead (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dystopia (Megadeth album)

Why do you wipe entire passages without giving a reason? The next time I'm gonna report you for vandalism! LordRapture (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LordRapture, it wasn't removed with no explanation. The ratings you listed are from unreliable sources. There will be more reviews in the upcoming week, and considering the maximum limit for reviews is 10, I don't want to have About.com or Zumic over the Guardian or New York Times.--Retrohead (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources? I highly doubt that any random online blog is more "reliable" than a magazine that is on the market since 1983. Make your homework, buddy! Any further action like this will be responded with a vdandalism report! --LordRapture (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LordRapture—If it was reliable, it would have surely been weighted by Metacritic, which counts the album's average reception. Furthermore, Wikipedia advises using sources written in foreign language only if reviews in English aren't available, which isn't the case here.--Retrohead (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about political tools like Metacritic? How old are you? 10? Rock Hard is the leading magazine for rock and metal music on the German market for more than 30 years. You really should learn to think for yourself instead of following the most retarded rules like a blind and thoughtless sheep. I've been linking to Rock Hard reviews way before you even joined Wikipedia. Again, do your homework, buddy! That's my final 0,5 cents to that topic. I won't read any further of your nonsense! --LordRapture (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 21, as shown on my profile. I hardly understand how a website which counts average score for music and movies such as Metacritic is political. And for the record, people say "there's my 2 cents" when they are giving an opinion on certain subject.--Retrohead (talk) 08:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dream Theater (album)

Hey man, I finished all the edits you made in your GA article review. Any chance you could take another look? If I don't hear back, I'll put it back in the GA nomination queue. --Ktmartell (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ktmartell, re-nominate the article and I'll gladly take a second look when I get the chance.--Retrohead (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been re-nominated. Thanks in advance if you're able to take another look!--Ktmartell (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

re: Show No Mercy

Replied at discussion page. Have a good one!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Am I in the wrong here?

Can you please review my edits at the list of thrash metal bands to see if my edits are in the wrong? The other editor their repeatedly is adding bands with no English Wikipedia articles and poor citations, and removing Meshuggah, but says that I need to be patient and wait for those underground bands to get more coverage before I remove them.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I replied at the talk page. As I said there, there are over 23,000 thrash metal bands worldwide and listing all of them is nonsense. Adding links to articles from the German Wikipedia is also wrong. By the way, thanks for informing me on this one.--Retrohead (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I did ping you in a discussion with the editor on their talk page, as they were interested in creating articles for the bands they were trying to add, and I said that you might be able to help if they had questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 20:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica 'Kill 'Em All' Australian chart peak

Hi, I am reverting your revert of my edit on the Kill 'Em All page, as the Australian chart peak is not taken from David Kent's 1993-2006 Australian chart book. This book is based on the Kent Music Report chart, which was not Australia's official chart after 19 June 1988. The peak is actually an ARIA Chart peak, supported by Gavin Ryan's chart book, which is based on the ARIA chart, and I have added as a reference in place of the David Kent chart book. Please do not revert this edit again.Nqr9 (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS I've taken a screen-shot of the relevant page from the pdf copy of Gavin Ryan's chart book here, to show that it was taken from this book and not David Kent's book: [1] .Nqr9 (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nqr9, another issue would be the consistency in naming the charts. It should read Australian Albums Chart, not as it currently is. Your quick edits don't give me an impression that you think twice before you change the content. First you've switched position to 56, then reverted to 55, and you haven't properly formated the reference.--Retrohead (talk) 23:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put 56 at first as that was the first entry I saw listed for 'Kill 'Em All' in the book (its 2008 re-entry, listed on the page following the one I've taken the screen shot of); that was an error on my part, but I corrected it. I put the ARIA chart specifically, as 'Australian Albums Chart' is too ambiguous, given that there were 2 national Australian charts at the time. You can put it back to that though if you want (the hyperlink directs to the ARIA Charts page anyway). How have I not formatted the reference correctly? I've seen David Kent's books cited as a reference for ARIA peaks outside the top 50 (no doubt by people who don't even own the book/haven't even seen it when they add it as a reference) so many times. I think it's poor practice to cite a book that you've never seen, which was surely done here when the David Kent book reference was added.Nqr9 (talk) 23:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the ISBN missing, you haven't cited a page, and you haven't provided links for publishing company, author (if it has).--Retrohead (talk) 23:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The book doesn't have an ISBN. I have both the hard copy and pdf copies of it, but neither has an ISBN. Moonlight Publishing is the publisher as I've listed. I don't understand what you mean by not having cited an author either, as I had it listed as { {cite book|last=Ryan|first=Gavin|title=Australia's Music Charts 1988-2010|year=2011|publisher=Moonlight Publishing|location=Mt. Martha, VIC, Australia} } (putting spaces so that it doesn't appear as a reference on your talk page). I don't understand why you've reverted my edit again back to David Kent's chart book. I don't want to get into an edit war with you, but this peak was definitely not taken from David Kent's chart book; and that book lists peaks for a chart that was not Australia's official chart at the time (please look at the Kent Music Report and ARIA Charts pages I have hyperlinked previously).Nqr9 (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS there are no page numbers in Gavin Ryan's chart book either. I don't understand your issue with there being no page number cited, as there has not been a page number cited either in the David Kent reference currently on the page.Nqr9 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's info on the Gavin Ryan book - [2] (no longer in print), and also [3] .Nqr9 (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GAR input

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Eminem/1 hasn't really got much input ever since only one user left comments following its initiation. Care to leave any opinions on whether it should be delisted? Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contacting me Snuggums. I've read the article, and it doesn't seem like a major failure regarding the GA criteria for prose and reliable references. There's room for improvement, but due to my little knowledge of the subject, I'm not quite comfortable of making a straight delist vote.--Retrohead (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1

I started the procedure to have the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article promoted to WP:FA. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/New Wave of British Heavy Metal/archive1 needs discussants. Since you were involved in the WP:PR of the article, I am hoping you might give some comments. Lewismaster (talk) 08:50, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Lewismaster, I'll gladly read the article again and submit comment during the week. Good luck with the comments from the other editors.--Retrohead (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you. Lewismaster (talk) 05:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. The article is still sitting on the fence between "promote" and "not promote", because some positions in the discussion about the term "movement" applied to the NWOBHM need to be clarified. You participated in that discussion and I would really appreciate if you could leave your input on the matter and/or any other comment about the article. Lewismaster (talk) 17:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agharta FAC

You reviewed Agharta (album) once for GA, so I thought I'd invite you now. I've nominated this article as a featured article candidate. If you have the time (and the interest), any review/comments would be appreciated. Dan56 (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure Dan, I'll give it a look. Can you access The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia to check the rating of Skid Row? Much appreciated.--Retrohead (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's an entry for the band there but no ratings. If you meant The Rolling Stone Album Guide, there's no entry for the band in that book. Dan56 (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about the album guide; strange there's no chapter about them. If you're able to provide a link to the The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia I'll be very grateful. There must be something I can use.--Retrohead (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not the best link, but the GoogleBooks entry only has snippets ([4]) Dan56 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A PR for Taylor Swift

Hello Mr Retrohead. I have recently filed Swift's article at PR for further scrutiny. If you have time and interest, I'd love to see any comments you have. No rush at all. Cheers - FrB.TG (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll post some comments today.--Retrohead (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you said that you would provide a more detailed review once nominated for FA, here it is, if you still want to do that. - FrB.TG (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG, sorry for my late response, but college started this week and I'll be less active on Wikipedia. I doubt I'll have time to do another review, but good luck with your nomination. I don't think you'll have much problem at the FAC.--Retrohead (talk) 08:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Wow! On behalf of all the GA Cup judges, congratulations on doing so well in making Round 3 of the GA Cup! Although you didn't end up making the Final, you did fantastic and contributed heavily to the GA process by reviewing so many articles. We hope to see you next year! MrWooHoo (T • C) 01:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Viking metal FAR

I nominated Viking metal as a FAC. If you would like to comment, please do so. Thanks,--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica - Hardwired... To Self-Destruct

Hi, I'd like to apologize for my revision of your edits on the album genres. I thought there were multiple which cited it as heavy metal, but I can't seem to find any at the moment. Sorry for being an idiot, I wasn't trying to valdalize. Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Retrohead. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billboard 200

In future, please don't update the Billboard number-one albums page with a source that is not Billboard. The general consensus with editors who update these types of pages (that was in place before I updated any) is that even if the source is a reputable third-party news source, the only accepted source on the page is Billboard's official update saying that the album has gone to number one. I know you later updated the page with the Billboard source, but others have updated first with a different source in the past and been reverted by other editors. Ss 112 18:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ss112, I was rather impatient because Billboard's report was one day late this week, as it's usually published on Sunday. I updated it later, but thanks for correcting the reference format for consistency. And a big bravo for your great work in updating albums sales and chart peaks.--Retrohead (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hardwired credits

Not contradictory at all as note how I provided a reference? The lyrics credit provided no source to back it up. SuddenDeth (talk) 14:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look!

A Metallica fan! Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive metal

So I believe this is what happened. ...And Justice for All is written in a way that says it's progressive metal in the prose. That one discussion is so damn long that I lose the point of what's even being discussed. The other one said to list sources below which called the album prog metal. There is one, it just didn't happen. In response, a citation tag was placed next to it in the infobox. I found this unnecessary as it was already in the body, so I removed it. An IP removed it. I reverted it. I put it back in there and should've included an edit summary at that point. You reverted me. I rv'd saying it was in the body, and here we are. Wasn't aware that this was such a problem.

If it seems such an important part of the album ("progressive" comes up a lot), it should be there, or we should change the mention that it's progressive metal in the body. Or maybe you can help me with the longer conversation they had. dannymusiceditor ^{Speak up!} 12:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the discussion held 3-4 years ago. I'm not interested going thorough all over it again, neither I'm active as I used to be on the English Wikipedia. Given all that, I'll leave the decision to you. Whatever you do, leave a hidden note about the genre, as IP users will erase or add genres from time to time. Cheers.--Retrohead (talk) 16:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 25, 2017

Kill 'Em All has been scheduled for the above date as Today's Featured Article. I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time to make sure it's up-to-date. You can edit the text that will appear on the Main Page if you like; I'll be trimming it to around 1100 characters. Thanks! - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Greg Fasolino. - Dank (push to talk) 00:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]