User talk:Andre666/Archive 3 (2014–17)

Band member pages
Hey I've noticed that you have been overhauling band member pages with "the proper layout". I am a little confused on where it was decided what the proper format would be. Was there a discussion at Wikiproject Rock, Metal, Music, Musicians? Because the format that you have been overhauling to is different from the format that achieved https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nine_Inch_Nails_band_members&oldid=271500860 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Slipknot_band_members&oldid=229112041 to Featured List status. I appreciate the work you do, but not sure that it is having the impact you intended. Thanks – DLManiac (talk) 07:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Why remove the "Mark" lineups?
Hi, I don't mind reformatting, but removing stuff is brutal. I always referred to Deep Purple lineups as Mark I, Mark II, etc. as many do too. Now I'm all confused when I go to the page and don't see it anymore.

Please do restore it, or at least add it to the bottom after your new formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lepoete73 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done! :) Andre666 (talk) 08:39, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Doomed"
Okay, I suppose I was a little wrong. I missed the sources for the others, and I wouldn't have added it if I'd known. I was thinking it only fit in like where Oli gets to the third verse, he's like scream-singing. Kinda like in "Go to Hell...", if I say so myself. I felt like it didn't begin post-hardcore, but it got that way as the song progressed. Can you at least see what I'm getting at? You don't have to add it back in, but I just wanted you to see what I was saying.  danny music editor  what'd I do now? 13:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean, yeah... I guess... I can see what you mean, but it's not really close to post-hardcore even. It's just a little bit of shouting, and it's so minor in the scheme of the song that it's almost irrelevant. Especially when you compare it to what is considered as real post-hardcore. In short, I guess I can see what you're saying but I disagree. Sorry :) Andre666 (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC) stop deleting the truth

List of songs covered by Muse
Hi! Explane please, why this list "no need for another article"? Beatles and Beach Boys has it as well as "list of recorded songs".--JTs (talk) 10:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. The topic of "songs covered by Muse" is not notable enough to warrant its own article. All the information is covered easily in the songs article. The Beatles and Beach Boys articles you have highlighted are poorly written anyway, and the Beatles one does not even have any sources, but even so they are MUCH more notable bands than Muse are, and have covered MANY more songs. There is no need for this extra article. Andre666 (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

BMTH edits - Reply
Hey, I'm sorry for causing ruckus on the BMTH page, I wasn't aware of how to read the edit summaries.. which I should have been. Can you further explain to me why it keeps getting removed? I don't understand, is it only because they can't have more than 4 genres, as one person stated? Please explain. Thanks!Wikipageedittor099 (talk) 21:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bedroom Sessions demo
Hi, what am I doing wrong with the album? I'm kind of new to wikipedia, so I don't know so many things about the way to create pages and redirections. I created the page about the demo, so if you see a problem, please teach me how to solve it or do it yourself. Darkmatter17 (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, even though, there are self-released albums that are on the wiki, I think I have made 2 articles about not very known albums already and there's no problem with that. If The Bedroom Sessions existed as a page, everyone interested could support the page and complete it till it's fair enough. I just like for everything that I know about to be complete and without blanks. What do you think? Darkmatter17 (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Self-releases
I have a doubt about a self-released EP by the band Monuments (metal band). Would it be OK to create a page about it? Or is it too unknown and we miss information? Give me a piece of your mind please. Darkmatter17 (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Daniel Davies
Hey there Andre, sorry about the confusion with the Daniel Davies links. I was just finishing up an article on him that I have been working on for a while, and was prepping the wikilinks in a number of pages that Davies is either linked or mentioned in to make sure they would link to the new article. I can understand why it didn't make sense to add wikilinks to a redirect page, but that is no longer the case, which is why I reverted the links back. You can see the new page at Daniel Davies (musician). Hope the new article is helpful to you and others. Keyboard warrior killer (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Slipknot Timeline
The timeline seems more precise with Jones being under Brainard, also its redunadnt adding samples as width 3 with vocals being 1 width taller than the others when you could just put samples as width 8 to Colsefni as equal to adding keyboards to Wilson as width 3.

Example:

Doesn't that seem better than the one currently?99.104.139.147 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC) {NellyOriginPMOD (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2016}

Galactic Prey revisions
Why was my edit removed with no explanation? I added more detailed information regarding the album's inception (which actually played a big part in the overall "story") and cleaned up some of the poorly worded sentences. Now with the revert - it still reads poorly, it's still in "current tense" and still contains some obvious falsities.

Worst of all: The whole "Jon's material wasn't up to par for the album" statement wasn't actually stated in that interview that's currently cited (where he actually talked up JM quite a bit and was excited for the music) - it was loosely stated the next week in several deleted Facebook rants. Therefore, the cited source does not contain anything mentioning the "low quality of material" done by JM (in fact it states the opposite - that the material was very technical and complex and didn't "gel" with the rest of the material). This is especially troubling because we know how certain individuals have vociferously edited this and related pages to air out personal grievances and alter history. I understand that it's hard to maintain an unbiased page such as this, which has had several vandal attempts, but we can add and remove some obvious flaws and make it at least read better. Teradakt (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Southampton FC season articles
I think a few words of thanks and praise are due to you for your work on the Southampton FC season articles. You are doing a superb job in creating these articles and then keeping them up to date. Of most importance are the brief match summaries that you have included. I was looking at the Leicester City current year article - there's a mass of statistics but very little narrative. Even their title winning season article includes little more than the minimum amount of text rather than tables.

Well done and keep up the good work! 07:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you take another look at the 1946–47 Southampton F.C. season article. I think that the column headers in the Top goalscorer chart have been transposed. Editing on an IPad, I'll find it hard to put this right. Cheers.  07:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, thanks a lot dude, really appreciate it. I really enjoy doing the season articles and am glad that I appear to be able to do so with pretty much total freedom, or at least with very few challenges on things from other editors. Anyway, it's really nice to hear that you like what I've done! :) I can't see what you mean about the 1946–47 article, the headings look right to me, am I missing something? Andre666 (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In the table in the 1946–47_Southampton_F.C._season section, you have, for example, George Lewis making 12 (League) appearances and scoring 28 goals. (If only Saints had him now!) And as for Eric Day - 21 goals in 2 appearances - Wow! Either the headings or the contents of the columns are transposed.   Sussexpeople (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aha! You are right, sir. I have just corrected it – thanks for raising it :) Headings were t'wrong way round. Andre666 (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Lists of Southampton F.C. players
As Sofiane Boufal has now achieved 25 appearances, he will need to be moved between lists. Cheers. Sussexpeople (talk) 13:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What was wrong with the edits the other person did in this regard? I didn't notice anything wrong, although I only checked briefly. Andre666 (talk) 13:22, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The Last Ninja 2 rollback
Sorry for the yesterday insert. I misunderstood the context. And thank you for the verification. Bsivko (talk) 07:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for understanding :) Andre666 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Nickelback discography
Just letting you know, I've reverted your addition of sales based on certifications on Nickelback discography. This is incorrect and a false equivalence. Sure, the issue is complicated with digital sales being added, but traditionally, for instance, a manufacturer shipping copies of an album to stores does not mean those copies have actually been sold. This is what certifications can and are frequently based on. We cannot and do not say on Wikipedia that, for example, an album being certified Platinum in Australia means it has sold all 70,000 of those copies. Sure, a large percentage of those certification numbers are probably actual sales. But we do not know how much, nor can we speculate or assume.  Ss 112  04:50, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

British music charts
Hello Andre666 - sorry it's taken me so long to reply to your message on my talk page from 5 April 2017, but I've been on a break from Wikipedia and this is the first time I've logged on in eight months...

In answer to your question - yes, the year-end charts were printed in Music Week and in Record Mirror (until it closed in April 1991). Both magazines are available in the British Library in London, of which I am a member, so I do have access to them. However, as I don't live in the UK, I can't get to them that often, only when I'm back in the country on holiday. Was there a specific question or request that you had? (And I'll try not to leave it eight months before replying again...) Richard3120 (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Soiuthampton
The argument of consistency appears to be a stale positioning to precent the article from evolving, having it in such a way seems to be a pointless way of presenting the article. It is known the season has not started yet so stating pre season is more accurately that zero games played, as that is a redundancy. Stating not yet drawn for the cups is again a misnomer, as it is clearly known that he club will be in the third and second rounds of the respective cups and showing it in italics is a common way of stating the competition is ongoing. Articles evolve and consistency is a staleness argument. Time to move with the times, and accept new kinds of ways of doing things. It is only consistent with previous articles until something new become the consistent thing to do. by that argument articles would never change or evolve. There must be some reasons for doing it other than, it was done before. Sport and politics (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Helmet band members, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthrax (band) ([//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_Helmet_band_members check to confirm] | [//toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_Helmet_band_members?client=notify 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) 10:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

List of songs recorded by Chris Cornell
Hi Andre666. I stumbled across List of songs recorded by Chris Cornell that you wrote and I personally think it meets the featured list criteria for it to become featured. I think if you nominated it, it should easily get promoted. If you don't want to that's ok too. I'm not going to nominate it because it's not my list. Happy Editing! BeatlesLedTV (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the kind comment. Perhaps I will think about nominating it, if you think it would pass :) Cheers! Andre666 (talk) 09:38, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Thin Lizzy
Saw your blanket revert - Dee never played with the band, unless you can find a source for it. What's the point in him being on the list if he never played or even rehearsed with the band (he didn't). He was just announced as performing for about three shows but never played one. Can you remove all your other mistakes please? Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Whether he played with the band or not, he was announced as a member. There are plenty of examples over the years of people joining bands but never playing with them, it doesn't mean they weren't members of those bands. It was announced by the band, then he was replaced a few months later; it's not a question of whether there is a "point" of putting him there or not. I will check the other "mistakes" you mentioned, as rude as you are being to me. Nice to see fellow editors appreciating my days of hard work. Andre666 (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It just creates a bunch of inconsistencies. You've left out several people who actually did play in the band, whether for one gig or a few, and included someone who didn't. Going way back, there are other people who were announced in the press as members who never played. I could find them all and add them, and it wouldn't be pretty. It's just counter-intuitive to start including them. Your definition of "member of the band" is odd; it was announced that Dee would play four or five gigs, and then it was announced that he wouldn't. That does not make him a member of the band. The band themselves would be surprised to hear that Dee was a member. Whatever you think of my comments, maybe it's as "nice" as correcting a bunch of mistakes and having them blanket reverted by someone who just doesn't like being reverted. Either get everything right, or accept people correcting you. None of my corrections is wrong, by the way, so it might be worth discussing them before we end up in an edit war. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough on leaving out "several people who actually did play in the band", I was unaware of that. If they were added to the group and not just guesting for a few songs live, then they should of course be added. I just went by who was listed on the main page, and then added Dee as he was in the news story for the 2016 return. Sorry for the attitude. Andre666 (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, no worries. I had attitude of my own. There were guys who stood in for a gig or a few gigs. People like Haugland, Mike Mesbur, Clive Edwards etc. But none was ever considered a proper member of the band. Likewise, Cann, Gee, Nauseef, Ure and Flett were all very much temporary members. Some are included and some not. It would actually be hard to get them all, there were so many. Plus people like Pratt (good spot by the way), were also pretty temporary. Between 2001 and 2010, Gorham and Sykes just grabbed whoever was available for a tour. At the end of each tour the band was basically on hiatus again. So the band was extremely fluid at that point.
 * There are a few other things - the thing about Wrixon and Bell joining from Them is a bit misleading. They were never in that band at the same time and had both been in several bands between Them and Thin Lizzy. Brian Downey never left the band in '78, he just missed a tour; Nauseef didn't play with them after that tour in '78. BD also never sang backing vocals - I've heard him sing and it ain't nice. He can play guitar though. Also "bass" should read "bass guitar" per the article, to differentiate from other bass instruments. Just an encyclopedic thing, rather than a music journo thing. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, I never knew there were so many members of Thin Lizzy (I'm not super up to speed on them, I have just been doing a lot of these lists lately), although in my research I did notice it was very fluid and on-off between 2001 and 2010 so it makes sense. I usually put temporary members in a touring section of their own (see Exodus, Testament, Anthrax for example), but I found it very hard to split them out correctly and consistently. If you have a better understanding, then we could potentially move them, otherwise it's fine to leave it IMO. Nauseef, for example, would just be a substitute and thus removed from the timeline I think. Andre666 (talk) 19:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Lizzy is a really complicated band, and they basically still are. At one time, particularly around 1979-80, there were guys who didn't really even know themselves if they were in the band or not. Lynott also had a pool of musicians whom he used for his solo work, and sometimes that bled over into Thin Lizzy. I think a separate section for temporary, touring or non-recording guys would be a good idea, and I think we could pull it off. Nauseef, Cann and Gee for sure, plus Mesbur. Flett was temporary but did touring and a bit of TV work. Edwards just stood in for an episode of TOTP because Downey went off in a rage - I spoke to Edwards about it only on Thursday. It would depend on our inclusion criteria. If you have inclusion criteria for a separate section, then I could help with who might go in it, if that makes sense. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, what is your link to the band? You seem to have the inside line! I definitely feel like a fool for being so defensive from the off now. My assumption of how it should work is that if a musician was brought in with the intention that they were only filling in for someone or a proper search would happen later, then they would be considered a 'touring' member. Andre666 (talk) 20:00, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've met most of them a few times and some of them asked me to write or rewrite their articles, plus Gorham's guitar tech is a friend of mine, so I hear a few things and can ask him to ask Scott anything I don't know. It's ok, I can sometimes act like a dick and get a bit high and mighty. Sorry about that. OK, well in that case, in the recording era, Cann, Gee, Flett, Nauseef, Mesbur and any other member who didn't record - they were temporary. The sticking point is Ure. He was not considered a permanent guitarist (certainly) but was around for a while as a keyboard player. But he was only there as a favour and was itching to go off with Ultravox. Once Lynott found Wharton, Ure left. I'd say he's temporary using that criteria. Permanents would be Lynott, Downey, Bell, Wrixon (although brief), Gorham, Robbo, Moore (temporary appointment in '77 but optimistically intended as permanent in '74 and '79), White, Wharton and Sykes.
 * Since 1996 they've basically just been a touring band with no serious intention of recording as Thin Lizzy, so there's the question of how to classify Mendoza, Aldridge, Gregg, Lee, Pratt, DiCosmo, Warwick, Campbell, Fortus, Johnson, Hamilton, Haugland, Travis and anyone else I've forgotten. Some were only ever going to be around for one tour, and others stuck around longer, but all were just gigging members. Thoughts? Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, that's a really useful overview and kind of lines up with how I assumed everyone would be classified which makes it easier. In terms of since 1996, to classify everyone who joined since then as a "touring member" would be misleading, as it would suggest they were somehow "less" a "part" of the band than they were. People like Ricky Warwick are clearly intended to be "full" members of the band, but maybe people like Guy Pratt and Richard Fortus, who appear to have just been hired to fill in some scheduled dates, would be considered as such? Andre666 (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How does it look now? Might be missing a couple you mentioned, but we can add them once we've settled this point. List of Thin Lizzy members Andre666 (talk) 20:31, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm guessing Tom and Scott in the current lineup are actually touring members, as they clearly won't be there forever as they are in two massive bands already. Andre666 (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool, so that side of it is sorted at least. I agree that there were a few different levels of membership after 1996. It might be difficult though to establish who was intended as permanent and who wasn't. I don't know about Gregg and Lee, or DiCosmo. I think the latter was only used because Mendoza was unavailable, but I'm not sure. It's a slightly murky era which some band members don't like to talk about much. We might be guessing on a couple of those. How about splitting the main section into 1969-83 and 1996 onwards? There was clearly a recording era and a non-recording era, with Lynott and without him, so is that a possibility? That way we could just list all the post-96 guys in that section.

Otherwise, at a stretch I'd say Mendoza, Aldridge, Warwick and Johnson were considered more permanent, with the others not so. Campbell's a bit more difficult - at the time they weren't sure if Lizzy was going to work with Warwick out front so it may have been that they didn't think very far ahead. Thin Lizzy's purpose was evolving a fair bit during 2010-13, with the Black Star Riders thing looming. Campbell was always going to go back to Def Leppard though at some stage.

Hamilton and Travis are definitely temporary, just recruited for the anniversary shows. Those shows only happened because Gorham was bored while BSR took a break and Warwick and Johnson were mainly doing solo stuff. Downey was unwell, and Mendoza was sidelined due to not coming to an agreement (financial I think). Hamilton and Travis may not even appear with the band again, if indeed there are any more gigs. It's definitely on hiatus at the moment with nothing planned at all - just BSR all the way for now. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not 100% sure about splitting the page into two sections, although that does make the most sense to me at this point. I've mocked something up on my userpage here: User:Andre666/Thin Lizzy. I could add a lead-type section to each part explaining why they've been split and what each era means, then change the release contributions to reflect the band's activity accordingly. I could also split the timelines out into the separate sections, which would make them easier to read. My main concern is that we would then be repeating members in different sections of the same list, rather than keeping everything together (e.g. John was active from 82 to 83, then from 96 to 09, whereas with them split out it looks at first glance like he was only active for one or the other). What do you think? Andre666 (talk) 21:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean; there's no obvious way of doing it. But your mock-up looks alright to me, and as long as everything is adequately explained, there shouldn't be a problem. I think the repetition of certain members doesn't look too bad, and of course to anyone not very familiar with the story of the band (i.e. most people), it might make it a bit clearer. Where there's potential for confusion, an encyclopedia should err on the side of repeating something rather than assuming people will understand it. Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay cool, I will work on it tomorrow then and let you know when it's live. Then we can work on any amendments/additions you think are needed. By the way, I just went onto your profile and saw you list your birthplace as Truro – do you still live in Cornwall? I am currently based near Launceston, but will be moving to Plymouth soon (I move around a lot, but grew up in Devon). Small world! Andre666 (talk) 22:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good. We ought to be able to make a decent end product between us! Sadly I don't live in Cornwall these days thanks to work. I'm up in London. But I get around a lot and I do visit family in Cornwall whenever I can. You're lucky to be down there, wish I was! Yeah, the world is smaller than we all think ;) Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's cool, I'm kinda the opposite in that I live here but find myself in London a lot, as that's where all my friends from uni are these days. I lived there for a bit but didn't enjoy it, so I've been back here for the last few years. I'm always moving around a lot though, so could end up anywhere! Awesome – this list will certainly be better for your involvement, so thanks for taking such an interest and helping out with it. Andre666 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't enjoy it either haha, but I go to around fifty gigs a year and being in London makes that possible. My friends are all dotted around. Gotta keep moving! And not at all - left to me it would have stayed as it was, so it needed some fresh input. I see I made my first edit on it nine years ago... wow... Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true, that was a huge perk of living there. I have to travel usually to London to see gigs – I just recently went to both nights of Metallica at the O2, but it would be easier if I were still there. I'm sure I'll go back some day. Yeah, the Thin Lizzy list is one I've tried to rewrite a few times over the years – I have drafts of it in my Wikipedia folder on my hard drive, haha – but I think the confusing nature of it put me off before. I'm in between jobs at the moment though, so I have a hell of a lot of free time, hence my increased activity as of late. Anyway, yeah I'll make those edits tomorrow :) Andre666 (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, big bands just don't like to come down to the south west, that's for sure. I generally see small bands but Bristol is usually as far as I go in that direction. Even Black Star Riders don't often go any further down than that. The Lizzy story is nuts really - when I wrote the main article a few years ago I found that I could easily have written twice as much, and had to cut it down. I'm still hearing bonkers stories even today. Cool, so we'll have another look at it tomorrow :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey dude, sorry for the delay but I've made the change now, so any new changes we need to make you can either add or let me know. Andre666 (talk) 23:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No worries, I've been ridiculously busy all week and only just got back online. I think that looks good, will get back to you soon on changes/additions. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:42, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

List of AC/DC members
Hi, me again - will get back to you soon about the Lizzy additions. Meanwhile I saw that you've worked on the AC/DC members page, which is another one of mine. You took out quite a lot of sourced information that I can't see a reason for taking out, particularly with regard to minor members' contributions. It really needs to go back in, I have to say. Bretonbanquet (talk) 13:53, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I edited the AC/DC members list as it had become very messy since the last time that I edited it. I made sure to keep the sources intact for the short-term early members, and you can still see them in the appropriate sections. However, it isn't necessary to go into too much detail about their tenures in the group in the list, as it's self-explanatory that they were only in the group for a short time with no release contributions, don't you think? Andre666 (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I just think a short bit of text about their contributions was helpful as a lot of those guys don't have their own articles and information is hard to come by elsewhere, and the text was not long. Members' pages don't really need to concentrate just on release contributions, I don't think. There's a slight danger that these tables are unnecessarily short on detail. An encyclopedia should always err on the side of including information rather than taking it out for no obvious reason. Sorry if I came across a bit snippy, I've just heard about Malcolm... Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!
It's been a little while, but I just wanted to thank you for your contribution to the Calculating Infinity article. It was pretty much abandoned until this great edit, and I've even drawn from it a little bit to expand the Dillinger Escape Plan article. Much appreciated! -Ojo del tigre (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, ! Thanks for the message, it's my pleasure to improve an article for the good of the fans. I'm glad you like it! :) Andre666 (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)