User talk:Burningclean/Archive 4

Godsmack
GA nomination on hold. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The nomination is on hold, with notes here. It will be passed when they are dealt with. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Decide if you refer to the band as a singular (The band, has, is, Godsmack) or a group (they, have, their, are). M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Either justify the use of the logo picture or remove it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd merge and expand the influences and style sections. Otherwise it's pretty close - take note of what Metal Head says above me though. Check out some of the other band FAs for inspiration. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll take a quick look now and make some minor copyedits. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it fails, it'll still be a GA. But I think it has a decent chance of passing. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  01:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

There are still instances where you refer to the band as a plural such as "their" and you introduce them as a singular "is", and you missed step six of the FAC process. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting Godsmack to FA status. LuciferMorgan (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll get updated when GimmeBot gets around to it, although you can update the Project templates and add the FA star to the article. Promoted content is always listed at Goings-on before GimmeBot updates the ArticleHistory template. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Skeeker
It's been a while, I've just been curious as to what articles you've been editing lately and if you've gotten into any new bands since the last time we talked. I've completely redone my userpage as well, come take a look at it. I've been editing pretty much the bands that're listed under "My Bands." I created Slipknot's 4th Studio Album, which survived an AFD. However, the page for Sepultura's 11th studio album (which I created) was not spared. Dark Executioner (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Nice job w/ Alice in Chains! They were one of my earliest favorite bands, heard of em for the first time when I was 5; my Dad listened to em and I kept sneaking Dirt and Nirvana's Nevermind. I was into grunge and Led Zeppelin before any other rock bands. But now, as you've seen, I listen to just about every genre of metal and rock.

Anyway, if you need any help w/ Black Sabbath, let me know and I'll give it a shot. Maybe... and this is just an idea of mine... we could split the page into 4 different parts: 1. the Ozzy era, 2. the Dio era, and 3. the rotating membership era, return of Dio, and then continuing the rotating membership era. Because essentially, it was a different band every single time and tended to sound almost nothing like the previous one except for the sporatic riff. What I mean by splitting it into different parts is like what somebody did with the page for "Freak on a Leash," how they split it into an article about the original 1998 version, and then a completely different one for the 2007 acoustic rendition. It's basically 2 seperate versions, but they're still connected and at the same spot. Think about it, man, it could work!

See you around, Dark Executioner (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner

We settled this
months ago, I'm not being cocky. I'm just annoyed that you are bringing it up again. SisterEurope (talk) 00:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you finished reading you would have read "by seamlessly incorporating noisy hooks into a tight framework of pulsing beats, processed vocals, and a slew of programmed samples, edits, and voiceovers." SisterEurope (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the [] article. Then you can take back your last statement. SisterEurope (talk) 15:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains
Passed, congrats. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  01:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm you might want to slow down, There is nothing on the influence the band has had (that alone warrants an oppose), you reference "In 1987", why?, why is reference 7 bolded?, Internet Movie Database is not a reliable source. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Nirvana was promoted more than 2 years ago. Alice in Chains has been influential over the years and nothing covering their influence does not pass 1b of the FA criteria. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry about the FAC. GA and FA standards are pretty different, and I generally don't go as harsh on a GA as others will on an FA. It just takes time to get used to - good luck with Godsmack! &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide  22:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know it hasn't been going well, but the page is a whole lot better than it used to be. My suggestion to you is to maybe reword some of their history or add more descriptions of the albums. I'll help you out with this. And congratulations on your barnstar! I hope that I can get one someday - just how do you get one? Dark Executioner (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Dark Executioner
 * The thing that stands out is the images, you don't refer to them in the text (the actual coverart) and that's why someone opposed last time because of the logo in the infobox. There's also the same problem with referring to the band as a singular (is, has) or a plural (they, their). I will go over it later M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because they are all copyrighted you need to justify their use in the article. You can't just put images of album covers up because they look good, you have to refer to the coverart in the text like in Slayer with the album cover. That's why Tommy Stardust opposed your last FAC, you had a copyrighted picture of the band's logo that adds nothing to the article. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes remove them unless you want someone to bring it up at FAC. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me quote the AIC FAC "its a non-free image that has not been critically addressed in the article." is the logo addressed in the article? Nope. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes the only reason Godsmack passed because no one brought it up. It was brought up at the AIC FAC adding to that guy's oppose. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to talk about the actual design of the logo, if it resembles/represents anything/has any meaning etc M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying it's a "sun" is not a good enough reason or just adding "illustrated by Staley" still doesn't refer to the actual cover. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Congrats M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, big congrats. Gocsa (talk) 22:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Godsmack
Sorry to repond so late, but I'm not so keen of the tone of your message. I agree with you that the articles should be merged, but assume good faith my man! It appears this user regularily deals with articles of a scientific basis, not music articles. It appears that the discussion has died down now, but regardless, I left notes at Talk:Godsmack discography. Cheers. -- Reaper  X  04:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Chinese Democracy
Thanks... Although it's understandably failed the GAC, because of the stability criteria (even though it's not coming out any time soon). Happy Christmas. Funeral 03:38, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Link deletion
Hello Skeeker. I'd like to know why do you delete the links to 'Ezdrummer' and 'Drumkit from Hell' in the Ziltoid the Omniscient article. Thank you. --Thinking Stone (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Skeeker, the reason behind creating red links is to signal that a new article is needed to expand the information on a subject, in the hope that somebody interested will see it and create the article.
 * Also please note that it's very impolite and against Wikipedia's etiquette to simply undo a user's contribution without a single explanation of why.
 * I will now re-add the link to Ezdrummer, although I have already created the page.
 * Regards.
 * --Thinking Stone (talk) 04:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Avoid reverts whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism. Explain reversions in the edit summary box.
 * Amend, edit, discuss.
 * When reverting other people's edits, be sure to give a rationale for the revert (on the article's talk page if necessary), and be prepared to enter into an extended discussion over the edits in question. Calmly explaining your thinking to others can often result in their agreeing with you; being dogmatic or uncommunicative evokes the same behavior in others, and gets you embroiled in an  edit war.


 * It is against it, and shouldn't happen.
 * --Thinking Stone (talk) 04:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


 * What is against the guidelines is not providing a reason for the deletion, and the guidelines also point out that you should try to avoid reverts.
 * And I think I'm being quite civil.
 * --Thinking Stone (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a red link creation, coming from a registered user and including a summary of the changes is very unlikely to be vandalism.
 * By the way, what I was trying to say about red links is that they do serve a purpose, and they shouldn't be deleted depending on whether the article exists or not, but instead whether the link is relevant to the subject or not.
 * --Thinking Stone (talk) 23:58, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Because that allows other people to create the article, so I don't have to create every article I feel is needed. That even allows people with more knowledge than me on the subject to take notice that article is needed. --Thinking Stone (talk) 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains
Will add more later M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Rockdetector is not a reliable source, it's a guarded wiki (one person edits it but anyone can send information in)
 * where he met -> and met
 * , eventually changing
 * first full-length studio album - studio album is full-length
 * The song "Man in the Box" had unexpected success as a single, the video for which went into regular rotation on MTV. -> The single "Man in the Box" had unexpected success and the music video received rotation on MTV -> unexpected success according to whom?
 * Better of going for a peer review as mentioned below and asking editors to look at it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

re. Alice in Chains and Chevelle
Hey there. I'll take a look at Alice in Chains, but I'm a horrible FA reviewer (got so burned at my last FAC, lucky to make it out alive :P). Ironically, I'm also re-writing an article about a band of brothers now - check out Evermore (band) - not sure if it'll help, but you know you're not alone :) You might wanna put AiC up for peer review at WP:PR, WikiProject Alternative music/Peer review, and WikiProject Metal/Peer review (seems to be looked after pretty well, recommended) - that's usually preferred over jumping into FAC (especially the second time around). Cheers, and good luck, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 03:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the fact you listed Alice in Chains at the Metal Project's peer review, I decided to review it in preparation for FAC. It's in my interests to try to give expertise where I can, since it'd be great to eventually have a few metal editors penning GAs / FAs. Good luck with both of the above articles. LuciferMorgan (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I've checked the article again, and found that not all of the concerns I listed have been addressed. As you take double check and make sure you've addressed each concern, strike through my concern. As concerns getting Black Sabbath to FA, I tend to work on smaller articles. They tend to get less BS edits, and pain in the backside editors. I have two books on Iron Maiden, so could get that back to FA. The main issue is rubbish edits by others, so that's why I avoid such bigger bands. Also, I've never really done a lot of work on bands. The only thing related to Sabbath I would work on is a song or album. To work on Sabbath, I really think you need to own some books on them. LuciferMorgan (talk) 01:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take another look at the article soon. Getting an album or song to FA is a lot easier than getting a group to FA - when you write a band FA, you have to decide what information stays or leaves. With an album or song, it usually all goes in. With metal, there are plenty of unexplored album GAs / FAs lurking out there. All you have to do is compile the information from online interviews, Blabbermouth etc. - try it sometime. It's a lot easier than what you did with Godsmack, definitely. LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhh you can try if you want, if someone brings it up just remove it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 07:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Chains images
I realise how irritating images are- there seem to be admins who don't quite get our image rules! Certainly took me a long time to get the hang of. I'm happy to give you a hand with them. There's plenty of software available that will resize images for you- a quick Google search gave me this which may be useful. Basically, the image should be as small as you can get away with, but don't worry about a few bytes either way, obviously. Fair use rationales must explicitly explain why the image could not be replaced by a free one, and must also explicitly explain how the image adds to the article- for instance, an image that is purely decorative adds nothing. A lot of users like to use tables to help them organise their rationales- see this, for instance. Feel free to message me if you need a hand. J Milburn (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll downsize the image for you. I have used Flickr in the past, it's a goldmine from Wikipedia's point of view! Sadly, there are no free images of Staley, but it may be worth asking a couple of people if they are willing to donate an image of theirs- images like this are fantastic, but not free. If you do want to do that, I reccomend you take a read of the pages I linked to on the peer review. J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Had to download some new software myself (on my brother's desktop) but I have resized the image and expanded on the rationale of the logo- see Image:Alice in Chains logo2.jpg. Please edit the rationale to include the source of the image- I couldn't find it on a quick Google search. J Milburn (talk) 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So you weren't the original uploader? Perhaps you could find the image online somewhere? We need a website that hosts the image- is there an official website? Perhaps their record label will have a page on them with the logo? I'll take a look too. J Milburn (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not finding much. Unless you can find a source for that image, I reccomend removing it, although it may be worth adding the logo that the band currently uses, which is just 'Alice in Chains' in an odd typeset. J Milburn (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * God, the music on that MySpace almost gave me a heart attack- damn them drowning out my Dimmu Borgir! I wouldn't bother with that, just copy the image of the logo here. J Milburn (talk) 20:29, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean? Upload it and add a fair use rationale, maybe using the table I linked to earlier, then stick it in the article. I'll then delete the old image, if we are agreed that it isn't adding much. J Milburn (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I assume you use Windows? Open the image as paint, click 'save as'. On the bottom drop down menu on the pop-up window, select 'jpg' and save. Then try uploading the new version. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've just uploaded Image:Alice in Chains sunlogo.jpg? That needs some work, I'll deal with that in a second. Lyric booklets are OK as sources, not fantastic. Just format it nicely and it should be OK- I found this, which should help with that, badly formatted though the page is. Neither of those pages you linked to actually look great- they don't really look like interviews, just long diatribes by the bloggers. I would say no to those sources, personally, especially if you plan to take the article to FA. I'll go and deal with that image in a second. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure about eNotes- I would think so. I think the CD booklet would be fine, but remember that it is a first party source, so use it sparingly, and it is no good for critique, unless you want to say 'the band [or whoever wrote the booklet] has said...'. You can't release the band logo as public domain, you don't own it, so I have removed the tag you added there. On another note- I misunderstood you before, I thought you meant you were going to upload the newer logo. Anyway, I have added a rationale, and I have just remembered you actually told me where the source was, so I will add that in a moment. Am I OK to delete the original image? If you and me both say so, we can avoid the bureaucracy of it all... J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Very much so- I will take another look and add to my original peer review. It will still need work, but will be a step closer. J Milburn (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, I will take another look and reply on the peer review, right after I have checked what an IP is doing to some articles on my watchlist... J Milburn (talk) 21:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll get to that review now- a few articles and categories regarding my local area needed some attention. J Milburn (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a small typo in citation 32 (check the comma!) but other than that, all the sources cited look fine. Good choice on removing the non-free image. The article's now a far better shape. J Milburn (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you think it's ready, then go for it. I've personally only got one FA, and so I can't sit here and call myself an expert! If you do nominate, good luck. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Connie Talbot
Feel free to say no (I realise it's vastly different subject matter...) but I have an article at peer review myself at the moment, in the form of Connie Talbot. If you aren't familiar with her, she is a young girl who did well singing on a reality TV show called Britain's Got Talent. Anyway, if you want to review (and, as I say, it's fine if you don't) the peer review is Peer review/Connie Talbot. J Milburn (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A question
Hey Skeeker. I'm just curious what articles you will be working on in the future, if you are going to continue doing so that is. There sure are plenty of crappy ones to choose from :X M3tal H3ad (talk) 11:21, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, actually, if you are undecided, might I reccomend Trivium (band)? Asics used to work on it, but he appears to have abandoned it now. As such, it really isn't in a bad state, and probably wouldn't take much to GA, and maybe even FA. Plus, another pair of eyes on it would be welcome, it attracts a lot of vandalism. J Milburn (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yea, I'm going to do LOG soon. Machine Head and Mudvayne are good choices as information on The Blackening will be easy to get, and Mudvayne have released like only three albums. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to do an album article on those old albums you would probably need a book as recent interviews with the band won't cover an album recorded 10-20 years ago. M3tal H3ad (talk) 08:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good list- you know where I am if I can be of any help. I'm no fan of Trivium either, just got myself involved with the article when I reverted some vandalism and cleaned up the project page made by (a then very inexperienced) Asics. J Milburn (talk) 13:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Chevelle is maybe featurable. To be honest, I'm not quite sure what featured means any more. J Milburn (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as I say, I only have one featured article, and I am not too experienced in FAC/FAR. I had a look through the nominations a couple of days ago, and I was surprised to see what people were saying. I think the general view of what is featured status is has changed since I last aquainted myself with it. Sorry, I'm explaining this really badly. Do you see what I mean? J Milburn (talk) 21:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep newer albums are a lot easier. I didn't use a book for the Slayer albums, there was a huge magazine story of the band's history which was very useful. Chevelle can be featured you just need to make sure it's written well, and the only GA's that i would bring to FA is Dave Lombardo, The Blackening and Killswitch Engage at the moment. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Were they any good? Anyway regarding the image you want for a free license won't happen, because it is not the user's picture. Looking at his pictures he has heaps of promo shots of the band which are not his. Not all photos on flickr are taken by users. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess i could do some Machine Head. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I saw Slayer with Mastodon, was pretty cool. With Mudvayne the first paragraph of each section will be easy. Say when the album was released, chart position(s), quotes from reviews. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything on early years of Mudvayne either, that's the hardest to find. You need to look for the earliest reviews because the reviewer will have nothing else to talk about with the members other than their formation. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:X-static Cannibal.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:X-static Cannibal.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) 20:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Alice in Chains
I used to listen to them a lot more than I do now, but I still think that "Would?" and Jar of Flies are really good. I'll get to doing those samples as soon as possible. And I'm fine to do samples on other articles, by the way; just tell me which article and which songs. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 03:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside of Alice in Chains I don't listen to a whole lot of metal. I dig a lot of older stuff like Sabbath and Zeppelin, 80s thrash stuff like Slayer and Metallica, plus some stoner metal-type stuff like Sleep, but outside of that I'm a bit clueless when it comes to metal. I'll definitely get those samples done by tomorrow, and the AiC ones should all be up later tonight. I'll review Chevelle and I'll finish reviewing AiC probably tomorrow (phew!). --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks. I'm the main editor for most of the articles I've worked on, but I've had help from lots of people on nearly all of the articles and Loveless was a collaboration. I've really never worked on band articles as you've done, mainly just albums and discographies. Chevelle looks pretty good, but I haven't really looked it over thoroughly yet. I would definitely say that FA is a possibility. By the way, the AiC samples are going up now, and I'm starting the Godsmack ones. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. You'll have to write the captions. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ ;). Hope the samples are satisfactory. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll start reviewing it now while I download the Godsmack and Chevelle songs I need. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 06:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be tomorrow on the Godsmack samples, but I'm up pretty late sometimes so it could be tonight. And I'm not spending any money, so don't worry about that. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to say: Most articles have about four samples, tops, so two of the Godsmack songs have to go. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Currently, LimeWire isn't illegal to use, but the RIAA doesn't exactly encourage its use. I typically only use it in cases like this when I only need a few songs for something (which is almost never, because I always prefer having all of the songs on an album) - otherwise, I just buy the CD or sometimes download it from iTunes. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 21:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll review the last section of AiC in a few moments. The first two Godsmack samples are going up now, and I'm getting to work on the last two Godsmack samples and the Chevelle ones. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your support on Slay Tracks :). I just finished reviewing AiC entirely. I haven't finished the Godsmack samples yet because I'm having difficulty locating a file of "Whatever", so I just moved on to Chevelle for now. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 20:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so I can't find a copy of "Whatever", but I did find a copy of "Running Blind" and "Good Times, Bad Times". "Running Blind" shows some of the band's musical diversity, while "Good Times, Bad Times" would be good in the "Influences and style" section as it's representative of their sound. I could easily do either of these songs, but if you think that "Whatever" would be better I'll take a little longer looking for a copy. --Brandt Luke Zorn (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Opeth...
dude, i dont wanna remove MySpace link... i even wanted to put the Facebook link, but i discovered that its against the site policy to add such links... so it should be removed!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MagedMahfouz (talk • contribs) 21:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Opeth MySpace
Is the myspace for the article really necessary? We've already got their official site, and as one editor pointed out, if you have their MySpace why stop there and why not add Facebook and other social networking links? I'm just wondering what you think. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  21:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, apparently their Facebook is unquestionably official too. And I've read EL before; I based my decision on number eleven under this. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  21:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * So are you for removal or adding of Facebook? Oh, and sorry about the large page; however, I've got multiple editors who I adopted who ask questions in their sections, so I wanted to avoid archival. Also, I was trying to either get to 100 or see when someone would request an archival. I'll archive it. Anyway, cheers! Master of Puppets Care to share?  21:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Lots and lots of archives. :D Thanks for volunteering to archive for me, though! Likewise, if you ever need help, feel free to drop by my talk page. I'll go see what I can do with the article now. Cheers, Master of Puppets Care to share?  22:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Godsmack
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 22:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * They do, don't they? But let's focus on the topic.
 * I posted a call for a truce, hoping you and the IP will find a solution to this confusion. Although Funeral summed it up pretty nicely....  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 22:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alice in Chains
I can't remember where I saw it spelt like that. And yeah, I have access to Flickr, why don't you? What I meant was glam should be mentioned because of how different it is to grunge etc. - I don't have any major concerns about it being mentioned there, it's just a thought. I've get their first two albums and Nothing Safe. Funeral 23:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's spelt Alice N' Chaynz here: ... But it's spelt Alice N' Chains on their Alice bio., so it's probably just a mistake. Funeral 23:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I'm not too good at reviewing articles. It looks like a good article (I've only read the lead and the first two sections) but I think the people who have already commented on it are better suited to judge it than me. Again, sorry. Funeral 22:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, just leave me a comment and I'll do it. Funeral 22:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't comment on FAC's i have worked on, as outsiders opinions are better. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just don't have the time or enthusiasm to look at those articles right now...:( &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC
Ha-ha, yeah it does. The FA director will know that since I struck the opposition it is a support, so don't worry. Actually I've recently been thinking of starting work on the Red Hot Chili Peppers article since that seems to be the next likely step. Grim-Gym and I have a bit more to write for Flea (which is a GA) and when that's been promoted to FA I'm hoping to start on the Chili Peppers. I'd love any help you could give us! NSR 77 T C  22:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains FAC
Sorry man, but FAC discussions aren't my thing. Too long and confusing for my pea brain to comprehend. If you've got any AfDs for me, though, I'd be glad to help.  Two One Six Five Five  discuss my greatness 15:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Alice/Burton
To answer your first question, I'm not planning on promoting to FA-class, because there's not much more to put down, at least not that I can find. To answer your second question, I don't know what I'm doing when it comes to evaluations, I'm really sorry but you'll have to find someone else to evaluate it. Good luck. 75pickup 03:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'm working on Primal Scream. I've rewritten most of it, there's still 1 section that I need to do, then I'll submit for GA.75pickup 04:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75pickup (talk • contribs)

Shadows Fall
Sure, although tell me when you are done editing it so there are no edit conflicts. M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, although try get a variety of music reviews rather than just from AMG. Try Rolling Stone, Decibel Magazine, Stylus Magazine, Blabbermouth.net etc M3tal H3ad (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with LOG thanks, just not in the writing mood lately. The GA process is entirely voluntary, anyone can review, fail and pass. However, if you do want to review articles you have to know the criteria, do this by reading other peoples reviews. I did pretty bad GA reviews when i started out but got a lot better as time went along, and good work with SF M3tal H3ad (talk) 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't comment on FACs that i am involved with - even if it is minor. Indopug's oppose is valid but the other one is well... M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No idea sorry M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really, if i find the sources to write an article i will write it, only if there is information on early years. A lot of the articles i recently re-wrote or on new bands as the information was easy to find. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you did not support. Sounds strange = but i would like people who have never read/edited the article to give their opinion and hopefully state things that could be changed so the article can be improved more. M3tal H3ad (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Jon Coghill
Everything done (or replied to) - thanks for helping out. Cheers, &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Same with My Happiness - thanks for your help. &mdash; Dihydrogen Monoxide 23:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Chevelle
Skeeker, I know you said the "Christianity Controversy" section is sourced and thus therefore accurate, but I would like to point out to you that this "correct information" is based on inferences you made from biased sources.

For example, you state "The only song on the album with Christianity-influenced lyrics is the song "The Clincher", written about the band's view of the Mel Gibson film The Passion of the Christ." Now, let's examine the source you point to. It states "Perhaps the most "Christian" song on the album is "The Clincher" (excerpted above), a driving rocker with lots of spiritual imagery (could this be their take on The Passion?)." The author is making this analysis, NOT the band.

In fact, the band themselves has stated this is not what the song is about (Please read the article found at: http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1496430/20050201/chevelle.jhtml ). Your source is a Christian newsletter making its own (obviously biased) theories about songs. Your statement is thus unsupported and should not appear on Wikipedia as accurate. Please take care of this matter. Thanks. Leira1122 (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Kill, I Oughtta
Another editor has added the "prod" template to the article Kill, I Oughtta, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the prod template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Year Zero GA review
Thanks for taking the time to review Year Zero (album). I've either taken care of or addressed all of your concerns on the article's talk page. Please let me know if there's anything else I can do. Thanks again. Drewcifer (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)