FateForger

Hello. I really do hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I don't think that website would pass wikipedia's notability laws for an article of its own. And truth be told I'm unsure if it's even a reliable source. It could just be another prog archives type of site and not reliable, though like I said I'm not completely positive on that one. Though I do know for a fact that Metal Music Archives is not reliable(they actually use wikipedia for a source in some of their articles.) But on the bright side I did find a source for House of Lords being hair metal. I'm pretty sure you don't know how to format books, so I'll do it for you. Have a good one. RG (talk) 19:36, 6 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Well if you want to find out if Sleaze Roxx is a valid source, I suggest you take the issue to the Noticeboard. Sadly, we can't include bands we can't find sources for. For lesser known hair bands like say Shark Island for example it is are incredibly hard to even find references that even discuss the group let alone their music. Rest assured though I will try to find citations for these bands. Take care. RG (talk) 01:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)Reply

Allright FateForger, maybe with this we can find the middle ground of the situation. Good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MATHEUS HS (talk • contribs) 02:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the words, do not bother for not writing on the talk page. I think it was the best that happened for us and for other music lovers. Again thanks and have a good night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MATHEUS HS (talk • contribs) 21:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hey FateForger. I just thought you might want to know that I've nominated the list of glam metal bands for Featured list. RG (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Guns N' Roses. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. --Yankees76 ^Talk 16:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You undid FrozenIceberg's addition of Guns N' Roses being glam metal 3 times [1],[2],[3] since July 1. Whether or not you agree that GNR was glam metal or not, you're still edit warring and in violation of the 3RR rule. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution - discuss the edit on the article's talk page or ask for additional editors to comment. Note that I've also warned FrozenIceberg's for re-adding his edit and if either of you revert it again, you'll both be blocked. --Yankees76 ^Talk 22:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong. If you check one of the links, you'll see I did undo it two times in a row because when I undid it the first time the skype extension on my firefox browser had inserted extra text automatically. Therefore I had to undo my edit and to undo the edit a second time. This makes two edits and not 3!!! I had told you that. Just check at the bottom of this edit, you'll see the extra text [4]. Anyway, I know changes should be discussed, so I will start a discussion on the talk page. FateForger (talk) 23:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

That's fine, but like I said, the rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. And please keep the conversation here, there's no need to re-type everything on my talk page. I can read this just fine. --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:07, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I am happy you finally saw my point. I know there is not a specific number, but I do not think that in this case there were the conditions for edit warring, as I would have certainly started a discussion at the third edit. I'm sorry for writing on your talk page, I just thought it would be easier for you. Anyway, I will start a discussion if the genre gets added again. Otherwise, I do not think it is necessary. Hope that everything is clear now. Summing up, I am happy we have settled the whole thing and that you have understood I had only edited two times. I am sorry for editing you talk page, but I do believe that some of your comments like "take your whining elsewhere" were not polite at all. FateForger (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Edit warring will get you blocked, whether you're "correct" or not, unless you're reverting vandalism. I merely suggested that the edit summaries are improper. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was not edit warring. Anyway, I believe Yankees76 was not polite, and that he acted without looking carefully. When I tried to tell him what had happened, my message just got deleted. Then, he finally saw what I meant. I'm not saying he should have seen it straight away, but that he should have read what I wrote in my first message without just deleting everything and stating I was whining. I did not mean to be impolite, and I had stated it clearly. FateForger (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I saw your message and read it before deleting it - it's typical of users who get warned for 3RR (it's always someone or something's fault) and I didn't feel the need to have to explain why you were warned with the article history is pretty cut and dry. But as I stated the rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Getting nitpicky about one edit being duplicated doesn't change the fact that had the other editor reverted your least revert of his addition, you probably would have reverted his edit again. The two of you had gone back and forth at least tiwce so I nipped it in the bud, warned both of you and moved on. Hopefully you guys can sort our your differences over what genre Guns N' Roses is on the article talk page. --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I got your point, this is why everything is OK now between me and you. Believe me, I would have never undid a third time without discussing, because I know the edit rule (I am not as experienced as you are but I am not that naive too). I know you meant to help, I just did not like your comments, which were impolite and not appropriate for a user of your experience. Still, thank you for warning me about the risk. I'm sure we'll get on well with each other from now on. FateForger (talk) 00:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Experience has nothing to do with being "polite" or not. Your constant poor-English whining-tone posts on my talk page were getting annoying. I'm sure we'll get along just fine now - just don't vandalize any pages on my watchlist and we'll be good to go. --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Politeness is something essential and not an optional when talking to someone, and having experience is helpful to learn this. It seems to me you get annoyed quite easily, since you reacted straight after my first post. I'm sorry, believe me I did not mean to get on your nerves. I'm also sorry if my English is not always as perfect as yours. Just one thing: I have never vandalized pages here on Wikipedia and I never will. For the rest, I'm sure we'll get along just fine as you say. FateForger (talk) 17:33, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What sort of edit summaries are you referring to? You shouldn't attack other editors, or violate WP:BLP or violate any other guidelines or policies in your edit summaries. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:32, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for not being clear enough. I meant if I am allowed to delete discussions from my own talk page or to summarize them, or if there are some guidelines which say that I can't do it freely. For example: if I wished to, could I delete everything from this page and make it blank again? FateForger (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

You can blank your own talk page anytime you wish. Blanking warnings simply informs admins that you've read and understood them. --Yankees76 ^Talk 13:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for letting me know, I appreciate your help. FateForger (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

What Yankee said.  :) However, if you ever find yourself blocked for any reason, request unblocking and the unblock request is denied, you may not remove that. That's about the only limit as to what you can do in your own Talk page. Well, except for rewriting other people's words. You can't do that, either.  :) Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for this details. I'm sure I'll never find myself blocked, since I do my best to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Well, I guess rewriting other people's words is one of the easiest ways of getting blocked. Thank you once more. :) FateForger (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

hi i am not a frequent user of wikipedia, but i've observed the great debate about the article on 'the final countdown' song

which some people think it is a 'symphonic-metal' song and not 'hard-rock'

i think whoever started this debate is firstly right, on listening to the song i agree

whereas someone has given the true meaning of Symphonic metal also

which is something that some people dont take into consideration, i think maybe we may or may not be able to find reliable sources on the internet for this

because i dont think there has been a good research on modern music, but i cant understand why we dont accepts somebodys opinion.Psychopompus (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I would like to include Osvajači into the list of glam metal bands and artists. They are a glam metal band, but i have problems with finding a reliable source (an article by a professional critic) that classifies them as glam metal, and I guess it will be hard because they are relatively unkonwn outside Serbia and other former Yugoslav countries. On the bunch of sites I found a biography from a book Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija by rock journalist Petar Janjatović which classifies them as "sweet metal". Can that be good enough? Ostalocutanje (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is a real problem. On an English language encyclopedia, it is difficult to establish notability in English-speaking countries for bands that seem only to be notable within their own (non-English speaking) countries. The lack of English language sources is unhelpful, and I discount www.discogs.com because it is, as are we, largely self-contributed and not easily amenable to verification. On the particular point, I wouldn't be willing to equate "glam metal" with "sweet metal", and in the absence of wider sources, I'd struggle to accept their notability as regards our standards. If they have had chart hits in their own country, that would help. Rodhullandemu 01:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Rodhullandemu. Listening to some of their songs, I had already thought of including them. Unfortunately, as for many other bands, it is very difficult to find reliable sources, which is disappointing. There are other bands which I think should be included, but the absence of sources makes this impossible. Coming to Ex YU Rock Enciklopedija, even though the author probably meant glam metal by using the term "sweet metal", this is not enough for Wikipedia's standards. If I do find a source, however, I will be happy to include them. Try writing to RG too: he has more experience than me when it comes to finding sources so he might find a solution. FateForger (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Motto of the Day (WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.

Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply