User talk:Nerdtrap/Archive 1

Welcome!


Hello, Nerdtrap, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
 * Please sign your name on talk pages, by using four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically produce your username and the date, and helps to identify who put a certain post on a talk page. Please do not sign any edit that is not on a talk page.
 * Check out some of these pages:
 * New contributors' help page | Help
 * Where to ask questions | Frequently asked questions
 * Introduction to Wikipedia | Guide to Wikipedia
 * The simplified ruleset for Wikipedia | Manual of Style
 * Things to work on at Wikipedia
 * If you have a question that is not one of the frequently asked questions below, check out Questions, [ ask me on my talk page], or click the button below. Happy editing and again, welcome! —Ute in DC (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Prepare For The End, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you.  Kinaro (say hello)'''(what's been done) 01:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Prepare For The End
Hello Nerdtrap. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Prepare For The End to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 07:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Iron Maiden?!?!?!
An Iron Maiden fan?!?!?!? Really???? You listen to that stuff???? That's awesome!!! Big fan, old stuff, new stuff and most everything inbetween. R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 21:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

York meetup
Hi Nerdtrap. Just to let you know there is hopefully going to be a meetup in York next week - see here for details. It'd be great if you could come along. Thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:From Fear to Eternity.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:From Fear to Eternity.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:19, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Maidenfan - Awards!
Hi, my friend in music taste. I'm the Maiden - Maniac from Poland. Thanx for source links for "Award" categories on official IM Wiki-page. But - what about an Emma - Gaala 2 awards!? See section Awards there are the links. And the few awards from German edition of Metal Hammer! But seriously - Emmas are the great gass - Finnish Grammy Equivalent. Just check them out, please. Congrats bro!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by FaustPOLSKA (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

List of best-selling music artists
Iron Maiden's available certified sales are only 15.4 (all figures have been converted from the certifications posted on the sites of the certifying bodies). Your figures posted on here are entirely wrong. Are you familiar with the certification-levels of the certifying bodies? If not, I can help you with that. But please do not re-insert Iron Maiden with anything higher than 71 million. Regards.--Harout72 (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Bruce Dickinson
The article Bruce Dickinson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bruce Dickinson for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Jezhotwells (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello
Hello my new friend .... great to see you updating the Iron Maiden page - However there has been a request to remove any references (thus the info) to www.ironmaiden.com because of our policy on Official sites and Fan sites for sources as per WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:SELFPUBLISH. I will give you a few days to find better refs before we start removing the refs and there info.Moxy (talk) 20:58, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for telling me. I will try my best to get most of these sorted over the next couple of days.


 * Actually I just got a second email telling me that the same web site is used many times in the new GA article on Bruce...last thing i want to see is it delisted because of this simple problem. I am lucky that i get emails asking me to fix this instead of people asking for it to be delisted from GA. I will look over both articles as  well before some ass hole notices them and starts going crazy deleting and fighting the GA review... Will help out tonight... First will get 2 books digitized so we can all see them and use them as refs..    I will post the links here for you to.Moxy (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)



I've been through Bruce Dickinson and have sorted out all the references to ironmaiden.com

I've been through Iron Maiden and that's clear as well now. Thanks again for informing me and please tell me if any more issues arise.

The Citation Barnstar

Your GA nomination of Iron Maiden
The article Iron Maiden you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Iron Maiden for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll get right on it!--Nerdtrap (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I went through the list last night. I trust there are no further improvements to be made?--Nerdtrap (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Gr8sshopper
Hello Nerdtrap.

At first I didn't agree and was upset with your removal of my adition to "Bring Your Daughter..." but having thought about it I can see why "promo" info isn't considered Formal for WP. I didn't agree with the complete removal of the "Brain Pack" info I put in it and have put a very short ref to it back. I also don't see how my ref to any of the info can be referred to as 'original research' when I had the ref their to use? I know I'm new to all of this and am learning about the Formal Protocal of WP, as I've asked for my first tree pictures to be removed, after I re-uploaded them under a deferent format of ref; ie listed Derick Riggs appropriately as Original author (sorry Derick) just like I'm getting the hang of a "minor edit" and a "major edit" for formal discussion. I am open to learning how your admin want it done of course so feel free to send a message if you see a problem like this again as I'm still not convinced about the "promo" info being non-fromal for WP completely I will admit.

Regards Gr8sshopper 11:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Promo discs do not count as singles as they aren't a public release and, in any case, the release doesn't look particularly notable, hence that removal. The brain pack info I moved into the corresponding paragraph in the "Background" section, so the verified part of that section still remains. "This is what the boys had to say," "Another tid-bit is that..."- these are informal phrases which therefore do not meet Wikipedia's formal style. As for the original research I am referring to the King Crimson similarity- I know you placed a reference, but that was just to another Wikipedia article, which is not a suitable citation, and in any case does not support what was being claimed. Your suggestion that the two covers are related is your opinion, and Wikipedia is not a place for unverifiable speculation. See Verifiability for more info.

Look, I'm not trying to be discouraging and I apologise if I upset you in any way. Any constructive changes are very welcome, you just have to make sure that they meet the guidelines I've posted above- notability (is it really worthy of mention and, if so, does it need a full section to itself or can it fit somewhere else), verifiability (does this source genuinely support what is being claimed in the statement) and tone (is it written in a formal style). Some other things I've noticed in some of your edits are improper use of dates (do not use a "th", "st" or "rd" after the numbers and do not cut the year down to just '09, for example), use of URL references without titles and access dates (this is a good sites which makes references for you- http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php) and use of American English rather than British English (Iron Maiden articles are written in the latter).

Do not be discouraged and keep editing- as I said earlier, correcting incorrect statements and adding missing information is very welcome. My exceptions to some of your edits are only because they do not always meet Wikipedia's style, which is something we have all had to adopt when we begin editing and, of course, takes time to get used to. In any case I'm sure you would rather be able to edit constructively to Wikipedia's guidelines on your own without someone like me making alterations.--Nerdtrap (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

G'day again,

Ok, I've got a lot more of an understanding now, cheers fro that. I'm Australian, so British English, the only form of English ;-), is always how I spell, so if i did an American version, my mistake and trust me I'm sorry about that, and the WP Protocol about pages being done in the country of origin about the subject matter I noticed in my searching. I've also now got the hang of uploading properly, with author credits done correctly. The "opinion" section you mentioned is probably the only part I'm still having a query about as their seams to me that a lot of people have done the same on many pages I've gone to read, not just Iron Maiden pages (which as I have all of their music you can find, I'm cataloguing into date of the recording on my itunes, not the release date of the album/single/ep or any other format released, hence my massive amount of editing within the Iron Maiden section) so I don't know precisely how one does differentiate between "opinion" and "cannon". I would be a lot easier to use half of my own collection but as it's from a personal source it can't be ref/sourced online.... Gr8sshopper 03:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8sshopper (talk • contribs)

It may be the case on other Wikipedia pages, but every claim needs a reliable third-party source and pages which don't do that lack reliability. It could be a fairly widely-held view but it can't be included unless it has an appropriate citation to support it. I know this can seem unhelpful in some circumstances, but the "anyone can edit" style of Wikipedia means that statements can only hold validity when they're sourced properly.--Nerdtrap (talk) 10:21, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Promo Info
Nerdtrap,

I've found many Track Lists with "Promo" listed singles on them so is it because I put them in other sections instead of track lists that it is not considered proper?

Gr8sshopper 08:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Highly rated pages in the Songs WikiProject do not include promo track listings. I'd say that the only case in which we can include promo track listings is when they have a fair level of notability, and it doesn't seem like the "Bring Your Daughter..." promo has this.--Nerdtrap (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah wasn't only thinking of "Bring Your Daughter..." promo but have come across it on many pages. Still, I think I've started to do any editing propley now compaired to when I started ;-) and have read most of these links now you've put up....

Gr8sshopper 09:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8sshopper (talk • contribs)

Category:GA-Class Iron Maiden articles
Category:GA-Class Iron Maiden articles, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Unwarranted revert
Are you saying that the "Eddie" character is NOT "a zombie-like character"? Eddie, who is shown as a corpse-like person walking around with rotting flesh and skeleton parts? Also, that's not something I made up, but have seen it in some websites. But you'd probably find them (in your uptight wiki lawyering, not understanding that "the sky is blue" is not something to revert, and is NOT "original research"), "unreliable sources" anyway...so why even put them?

The point is obviously Eddie is a zombie-like figure, and there's no valid reason to revert good-faith accurate things, simply because you personally may not "like" the point made, and then throw front (lame) excuses of "unsourced, original research". You don't own any article...so don't rudely arrogantly think that you do. And disrespect good-faith accurate edits or modifications. I won't put up with it. Trust me on that. The "Eddie" character is obviously (sky is blue) a "zombie-like being". It's just kinda strange and incomplete that this article (sighs) nowhere even mentions that! Doesn't go into it at all really. When it should. It was incomplete, by not describing just what this "Eddie" is supposed to be. And obviously is.

As far as grammar, you could have easily fixed that mistake. I just did. Also, I see from your page that you are deep into Iron Maiden related articles. I think that's part of the problem. I'm sure you know much more than the average person, but that doesn't matter. You should re-read wp:ownership, and understand that this is a WIKI...and that you don't own any article, no matter how much you contributed or may be well versed in the subject matter. Sometimes that can be a problem, because biases can result. And objective neutral and honest things get left out. It happens. It was a valid edit, true, mentioned in some websites (the very word "zombie"...but you might not count as reliable sources, but still mentioned), good-faith, accurate, and no good reason to rudely undo. Regards. DucerGraphic (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Right first off, the whole zombie thing is extremely debatable and adding that in without a source is not acceptable- these are the rules. I see you have added it back, stating that it is not unsourced, and yet have still not added a source! Leaving out sources in the lead section is acceptable when the statement is supported by citation in the rest of the article, which it isn't. The article does mention what Eddie is "supposed to be" in the background section, if you feel there is something missing add it in with a reliable source. If you had looked around for a reliable source to back up the statement then this would have been absolutely fine, but instead you appear to have gone with the view that: "I believe this. I have read it somewhere. In my opinion it is common knowledge, therefore I do not need to follow the rules." Now, you may disagree with this, but, from what you have posted here in my talk page, this is what you have communicated to me. Trust me on this, I won't put up with that attitude.


 * As for page ownership, I think you're being ridiculous. Sure, I have made a lot of contributions to this page and basically rewrote the entire article by myself, but this was because the state I found it in was absolutely abysmal- a haven of unsourced nonsense, fan speculation and incomprehensible rubbish, which I remain on the lookout for. Nevertheless, people have come along and made valid contributions and I have supported those fully, so if you had made an appropriate contribution I would not have reverted it. I apologise if I may have come off as rude, but I only have a limited space to discuss edits while making them and simply do not have the time to have long discussions in somebody's talk page with every single edit. If I was seriously intending to be rude, I would have just left the space blank or simply written "nonsense" or something similar, but I didn't. I wrote specific points explaining why I felt the need to revert them which should have been observed before you decided that I was the issue and embarked on a personal attack on me to try to justify yourself. I believe you should read this- Civility


 * Oh, and the sky is not blue. It just appears blue.--Nerdtrap (talk) 08:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I did find a source, almost put it, but decided to leave it out, because even though it seemed solid enough, it was also a blogspot thing. But I remember seeing that elsewhere. But again, what I mean by "sky blue", that is a WIKIPEDIA term and policy.  See wp:blue.  In case you haven't already.  Meaning that when something is so OBVIOUS...and common knowledge (different guises or not, Eddie is basically a living dead corpse type character, and any person with working eyesight can see that immediately), and not needing a source arguably.  But it always helps to have one.   Also, I know the sky is not technically blue.  (Sunlight leaving off the shorter blue light rays scattered all over, while other light rays pass through, so the sky "appears" blue.)  Just like snow is not technically "white".  But since it appears that way, it kind of is that way.     Black hair is technically not black...but very very very dark brown (I had read that), but APPEARS "black", so for all intents and purposes is black.   It's whatever.  Who really cares... The point is that it's common knowledge (WP policy and point) that the sky is blue (appears to be blue) and that something so obvious and well-known does NOT need to be "sourced" so much.   Yes, the Eddie thing is not as well known as the sky's blueness, ok.  But anyone seeing a picture of Ed can see it's a zombie like figure.  And you yourself admitted that several reliable sources do give that opinion or statement.  So it seems to be a known thing.    I'm curious...cuz you seem to be in a little disagreement with that...do you dispute that view? DucerGraphic (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

When you originally made the edit yesterday, I searched through the band's official biographies and the special feature magazines that have been used as the main basis of several articles and didn't find any description of Eddie as a zombie. After this I conducted a few internet searched and didn't find anything reliable, which is why I reverted it rather than amend the statement like I have done now. I undertook a much more detailed search today and the result is the four references now in the Eddie the Head article- not what I would call "several." Now I would say that Eddie being a zombie is debatable- he certainly looks corpse-like in several appearances, but to say that he must be an animated corpse is a step too far- which means that we can only use this description as a fact if the band, Riggs or anyone else behind him describes him as one. As they haven't said this, we can only say that he has been referred to as a zombie by citing some examples, of which there are only a few.

Another issue is that something can be held widely but that doesn't mean it is true. For example, it is a widely held view that tomatoes are a type of vegetable, but this isn't true as they are actually a type of fruit. Another example is that, amongst hardcore Maiden fans, it has become a common view that Iron Maiden was "born" at the Cart and Horses pub in Stratford in East London, whereas we know that this isn't the case as the band's official sources state that their first ever show was in Poplar. Regardless, over the years I've seen a number of different Eddie descriptions- zombie, a ghoul, a corpse etc, all similar but not quite the same thing. This, to me, says that there isn't a clear consensus and, if nobody behind the creation of Eddie can support one of these descriptions, we cannot hold any of them as an absolute fact.--Nerdtrap (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand what you're saying...about how none of the band members or creators actually clearly called him a "zombie like being" etc...but a few in the industry (not just rinky dink fans as you know) have. Which is what you rightly pointed out by more digging.  Also, again the very appearance (even with slightly different looks here and there sometimes) is of a living dead rotting flesh corpse being.  Not a living person with living blood running through healthy flesh.  LOL...   And to your point about "even if something is a common view it is not necessarily true", the point though with that is that Wikipedia does not care if something is "true", as long as it is SOURCED.   Which you found out that in a way, this kind of is.  So I guess it's better that you made it less dogmatic of saying "he is the zombie-like character" into "some have viewed him that way etc".  Though I still feel that working eyes just SEEING the thing sort of makes it somewhat obvious...not that debatable.   He's a ghoulish zombie-ish thing.   Also, notice my wording was zombie LIKE...not necessarily an out and out "zombie" per se.  But zombie LIKE.  Which, really, can you truly argue with that?  He is zombie ISH...if not an actual one.  Regards. DucerGraphic (talk) 20:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well you know what my viewpoint is and we'll just have to agree to disagree. Regardless, I'm pleased that we have reached an agreement within the article itself--Nerdtrap (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. I understand.  But I was only asking if you at least agree that "Eddie" is and looks zombie-ISH.   That he gives that impression, at least.   Even if there might be some ambiguity in a sense.  Do you at least concede (ala the sources that give that opinion too, obviously for a reason), that the Eddie character has some zombie-ish characteristics?   Do you at least admit that much...  That's what I was saying. DucerGraphic (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

User talk:31.185.39.217
Hi, why did you remove the StaticIP template, please? TerriersFan (talk) 21:35, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I was looking around the bot blocked pages and found the StaticIP thing and was curious to see how it was done and must have deleted it by accident! Sorry, once again (hope I didn't screw anything up on that page).--Nerdtrap (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem; thanks for the explanation. TerriersFan (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

World Slavery Tour
Thank You for accepting my corrections in WST article. It really took some time to add this extra information. My pleasure.Lassoboy (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, constructive edits are always appreciated--Nerdtrap (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello again!

The great debate is right now going on on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Concert_Tours page. I would be very grateful if you could say something about the topic on this page.

The main question is about numbering the tour dates and I would be interested in your opinion about Iron Maiden tours. Did my edits made the article a little bit more useful or rather not. What do you think? Do you like the idea of numbering the tour dates or not? Please post your reasonable opinion on the above mentioned page.

Thank you! Lassoboy (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maiden England World tour
Hello!

In Maiden England World Tour article I wrote accurate locations from the band`s homepage. Why did you revert back? Lassoboy (talk) 09:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The locations on the Iron Maiden website are not entirely accurate as they typically list larger cities in the area rather than the actual town where the venue is located.--Nerdtrap (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Discussion on another user talk page where your name was brought up
Hello, you name was recently brought up in a series of edit summaries by User:Lassoboy on Iron Maiden concert tour articles. I referenced this edit summaries at User talk:Lassoboy and I would like to give you the chance to join in the discussion since you were mentioned and it involves some articles that you edit. Thank you, Aspects (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

RE: edit
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Somewhere_Back_in_Time&diff=505199092&oldid=505192017

I noted you did not delete the entire block of text about the artwork, only some of it.

Surely if my note about the artwork on the back is "original research", so too is the content on the front cover that you left intact?

Whether what content I added was accurate or not is a separate discussion, but I am more curious as to why you deleted my "original research" but not the rest of the "original research" in the same paragraph? Surely if you were going to delete original research in that paragraph, the entire paragraph should be wiped? (Chill (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC))

Orphaned non-free media (File:Maiden England 2012 Tour Poster.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Maiden England 2012 Tour Poster.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)