User:LuciferMorgan/Archive 25

Blooddrunk (song) DYK
Hi. I've reviewed your DYK submission for the article Blooddrunk (song), and made a comment on it at the submissions page. Please feel free to reply or comment there. Cheers, Olaf Davis | Talk 18:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:This Is Where I Came In.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:This Is Where I Came In.jpg. 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) 05:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: This Is Where I Came In
Whoa! I have no idea what happened there. I was reverting the edit that had the lyrics on. No idea where the WJET article comes in at all. I honestly didn't mean to do that, all I did was hit the rollback button - which should've reverted to the version without the lyrics. Thanks for letting me know, I really have no idea what happened there. I think the intertubes got tangled. | | | antiuser 18:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with music sources
Hi there. I am writing an article, and what I've done so far is here: Book of Love (album). Unfortunately, since it's an old album, I am having a real hard time finding good sources. There's no 'limited preview' books listed in Google Books which mention the album or its singles, nothing substantial comes up when searching on Thomson Gale's databases, and dozens of web searches have not yielded much either. Searches on Rolling Stone and NME did not bring up anything. Do you know of where I can look to find some sources for this? I'd be most grateful if you have any ideas. Thanks, — Wackymacs ( talk  ~  edits ) 06:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Power of Omens
Since you successfully prodded Power of Omens, you may be interested in knowing that it has been recreated, with even less material than the article that was deleted originally. You may be interested in taking it to WP:AFD. Just thought you'd like to know. Cheers, CP 16:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar dude! I appreciate it a bunch. Drewcifer (talk) 03:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Strapping Young Lad
Hi! Sorry, I haven't replied earlier, I don't really come to or edit Wikipedia during summer. I'll take a look at the POV issues, you can also give me a list of other things you find problematical. I think a FAR can be avoided this way, don't you? Although I do believe it is not POV to state that an album received favorable reviews, i.e. significantly more favorable reviews than negative ones, and such magazines as Kerrang and Metal Hammer praised it. I think "highly favorable reviews" is not the right expression, but you could help me reword it so it implies the things I have mentioned (lot of positive reviews from well-respected magazines) Gocsa (talk) 18:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

RE: Meshuggah peer review help
Good day! I've red your message from 5th august just now. I did not have an access to the internet. I would like to know about the POVs you told me about. What exactly do you mean?--  LYKANTROP    ✉  19:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Matt Drake from Evile's comments
I don't see any non-critical responses on the RiB article. And how is one's opinion a critical response. It's not like he's a professional reviewer. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, I didn't even start it. I said it should be discussed. Someone else started it and then I just voted.. RandySavageFTW (talk) 02:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

None of your reasons for removing have any basis in Wikipedia policy, and is merely down to the fact you dislike the band.

Yeah, because I said that, right?

Frankly, I'm fed up of having to waste my time explaining such things to editors like you who try to police major metal related articles by removing any content you disagree with.

^^.

Maybe if you made a Legacy section for the AJFA article and put his comment under there I'd let it stay. It shouldn't be in Critical reception... RandySavageFTW (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidates/List of celebrities involved at WrestleMania
Replied to your comment.-- S R X  22:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:God's Great Banana Skin.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:God's Great Banana Skin.jpg. 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) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

WT:FTC
Morgan, while I can understand that the numerous issues brought to the page seem to be rocking the boat, it is all part of Wikipedia's process which has continually tried to dynamically improve quality. This affects numerous articles and editors, but in the end it is meant to improve Wikipedia's overall quality. All of which is no waste of time.

That being said, I hope you can refrain from posting in a manner which can be construed as uncivil. If you have a point you'd like to convey, I'm sure it would be better heard if you remain calm during the discussion. If I misinterpret you words wrong, I apologize. Either way, I hope you bring your view point to the discussion so that the best path can be sought. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC))
 * I agree that the number of proposals on the table right now is excessive. Some of them are good ideas and are the next logical progression to improve quality. Others I'm still on the fence about. Right now, I'm seeing where things are going before I pick a stance. I hope you'll follow the discussion and weigh in as your thoughts would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Maiden
My brother has a Maiden bio and some magazines. I'll keep a look out for reviews. My library has backissues of Spin and Mojo from 2000 onwards, so there might be reviews for the more recent albums in there. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's all the reviews Rolling Stone has: . Two is better than nothing, especially when one is a contemporary review for Number of the Beast. Speaking of which, have you checked out the Classic Albums series of DVDs? It surprisingly focuses on a large number of hard rock and metal albums. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you take a look at Thriller, which is at FAC now? My main concern with it right now is that the prose needs to be improved, and given your comments at previous FACs, your viewpoint is the sort of thing the article needs so its problems can be fixed. I also feel like there's some important facts/topics missing, but whatever they are they aren't occuring to me. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Crap, Thriller got promoted before I could bring up more issues at the FAC. I really need to be more forceful about stating when I think an article needs more work . . . WesleyDodds (talk) 03:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Mug shots
I started a thread here: Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Would you mind giving input? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  03:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Elexorien deletion.
As requested, i'll do it via this. While you might find my email uncivil. It is just the common reaction when you delete something a person worked hard on and something I did for the band in question.

I still don't see why you had to delete that page. There are other Trollzorn bands who have a page on wikipedia and they didn't get delete with the reason of not a known label. Look at Trollzorn.de doesn't really seem like a small label when you have 14 bands on it. Who are pretty known in western europe.

My reaction to you on email was not right but again I don't find it a good reason as I have seen worse articles on wikipedia and they are still on it.

The internet is a great place to promote and find knowledge about bands and Wikipedia should support that instead of just deleting stuff.

To show you this band has toured quite a bit in europe.

http://elexorien.com/?page_id=6

and has a label.

http://www.trollzorn.de/

http://www.trollzorn.de/trollzorn/html/bands_elexorien.php

Emteekek (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

"Deja Vu"
Now an FA. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hope to have your help again with my future endeavors. Thanks Morgan. --Efe (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Slipknot awards
I've made ammendments per your comments on the FLC, I'd appreciate your input again if you would. Rezter 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Samoana Soul.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Samoana Soul.jpg. 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) 05:05, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:AllWrappedUpVideo.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:AllWrappedUpVideo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Whites off Earth Now!!.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Whites off Earth Now!!.jpg. 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) 03:37, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for Image:March 2006 Texas Monthly.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:March 2006 Texas Monthly.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)