User talk:Skeletor2112/Archive 3

Welcome back
Nice to see you are coming back. Thanks for the comments, plenty more GAs and FAs to come that's for sure. Good luck with those articles, I'm going to be working on some film articles for a change, with a band or two in between. Regarding images, meet the bot with the above comment. It deletes all images without fair use rationales and is quite annoying, some user pages have up to 300 messages from this bot. There is a lot of editors willing to collaborate than before with articles relating to heavy metal and alternative rock, so there is always someone to ask for help. Cya around :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, welcome back. I've been here for only a year, so you wouldn't know me. However, I know you from Megadeth :D Your article stood up over the tear you were gone,, however could use some cleanup. So, good to see a great metal editor back. I hope you keep the good work up while you are here again. Peace, &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am also relatively new to Wikipedia, being a user for at least half a year. You might know me from my earlier incarnation, URFG (I was part of 'pedia under this name starting in early 2007). Anyway, I've heard some great stuff about you (mostly through Burningclean), and I was just wondering if we could contribute to metal articles together. check my user page for my favorite bands and contact me if you'd like to help me edit any of them. I look forward to hearing back from you. Peace, Dark Executioner (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner
 * Thanks, plenty more FAs to come. M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats on AIC :) M3tal H3ad (talk) 06:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nightwish
Hi Skeletor. On the review for this (Featured article review/Nightwish) you noted both a remove and that you intend to work on it. Do you stand by the remove in the meantime? That is, defeature and if and when it's good again, take it back to FAC. Or leave the FAR open? Marskell (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains FAC
Hi, I noticed that you disagreed with my points in the AiC FAC; you also asked me to look at other band articles. I read that you've been off Wikipedia for a year or so; in that time, the standard of music FAs has considerably improved. I request to look at our newer, and rather excellent, band FAs such as Radiohead, R.E.M. and Metallica to get an idea of the sourcing, comprehensiveness and writing-quality to be expected from Wikipedia's best these days. Maybe then you would understand my argument in opposing Alice in Chains' FAC. Thank you, indopug (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow! You dropped a load there! I'm glad someone sees my view. So you are working on Nightwish? I was thinking maby it could first be demoted, and then maby have a group of editors re-promote it. I think there is too much to take care of during the time of a FAR, but could be taken care of by multiple editors afterwards. (despite not liking the band, I would still help). But anyway, thanks. I'm always up for a collaberation if you are too. Cheers, &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks! Dude, I though after not being here for a year an editor would get rusty. I suppose you prove me wrong! So are there any other articles that you were going to work on? I have a really dumb question, what exactally is the "prose"? I always see that but don't know what the taco people are talking about. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you do GA reviews? Chevelle is going to FAC soon and Opeth is at GAN right now but afterwards will go to FAC. I left a message above this one also. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I was wondering the same question you put on the FAC page. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 06:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, it looks nice. Opeth rules, actually I am listening to them right now. The quotes I had with Jerry talking, I used the Cite journal as opposed to cite web, that is what the main opposer wanted. Would you mind re-adding that, or is there some other reason for it not to be there? I really hopwe it passes soon, I started working on it almost four months ago! If you ever get going on a project I would be glad to help. I am going to wait a bit for Opeth to go to FAC. M3tal H3ad just gave me some pretty good advise. I also want Chevelle up to FA pretty soon. Oh yeah, I don't know if you noticed but I changed my username. Peace, &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, it looks really good. Actually when you were talking about prose, I think you mean copy-editing, cause that is what your edits look like. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 20:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I finally got Music Bank! It could be used as a source because it has a bio along with it. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The image of Layne you put on the page isn't supposed to be on there. They ruled that image out in a previous FAC or PR or something. If you have an account to [flicker.com you could upload this image: That is a great image, however I can't log on to flickr because my mom has an account and I can't seem to figure out how to get my own. Hopefully we can get the minor things taken care of before they close the fac. &mdash;[[User:Burningclean| Burningclean ]] &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 00:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What? Him finding something wrong? Your crazy! (jk) :P That pic of Kinney is kinda wierd (aka he's ugly!) but it adds to the article. I get the same feeling as you, people just skimming through. I really wish someone would get that picture of Layne, I've asked quite a few people but I think it just goes unoticed or ignored. Dude, that logo was there the entire time, and now he complains about it! I think the musical style section is the only somewhat bad part of the page. (not too band) but that is the section I have the hardest time with. You're a really good help, most editors (other than M3tal M3ad, Dihidrogen Monoxide, and J Milburn) never contribute, yet complain if you don't get something they requested done in two seconds. What would you say about, after AiC is done, that we put Megadeth up for a PR or something? It still deserves to be featured but it could use some tidying. Actually a couple of months ago I removed five fact templates! &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I started working on United Abominations, it is actually easier than I thought. Here, check this out: User:Burningclean/article examples/heavy metal. It is cool, M3tal H3ad suggested I should put it on WP:HMM so I did. I'd bet a million dollars that if AiC fails, all it would need is a good copedit and it would pass. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 04:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. I'll be checking it now. =) --BritandBeyonce (talk) 10:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, you did an awesome job. I can't say how much I thank you. I set up LoCE because indopug asked for it to be copyedited by fresh eyes. I was wondering the same thing anout all that suff on the talk page. I certainly would never do that! have you checked out United Abominations? &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 03:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, indopug said he will support when the Music style and lagacy sections are copyedited! &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 03:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What would you say about restarting the whole FAC shindig? The FAC page is nearly 50KB long, and if we restarted I could ask everyone to comment on it again. I'm sure it would pass then. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 04:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suppose. I am just wondering if it is actually coming to a close, I have that that it was about ten times so I kind of lost my anxtiousness (excuse the spelling :P) But if indopug supports pretty soon (and who knows with him) then I am sure it will be done with. He really did push this to be one of the greatest articles ever though. &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 21:53, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That fricken rules! &mdash; Burningclean &#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 22:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, indopug doesn't oppose! Althoug he doesn't support either. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 08:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hehe. Its fine. I thought you were talking to me. --Efe (talk) 07:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What makes the source questionable is that there is no author stated. But dont worry, not all. --Efe (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Megadeth article
Hi! I invite you to reply to the Megadeth article talk page, as I see you uploaded a lot of (if not all) sound samples on the Megadeth article. Thank you! Grinder0-0 (talk) 12:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles we can work on
I've been a long time editor of both the Black Sabbath and Sepultura pages, but every time I've tried adding a genre that they are (for example, 1970-1972 Sab was definetely doom-metal, and 1996 Sep had an overt nu-metal sound), the thing gets deleted. Anyway, if you like them, the Slipknot article is currently trying to get nominated, and I think it's in pretty good shape. Want to check it out? I'm not feeling very good today (I think I have the flu), so this might be the last time I can edit today, but I would still like to hear from you again. See you around, thanks for getting back to me, Dark Executioner (talk) 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)Dark Executioner

Hey, I'm all better now, and we can start working on some articles. I wanted you to help me get the article for the thrash/death Arsames up to GA status. It needs a lot more info in it, though, which I am actively pursuing via their official website and Google. I also would like to ask you to help me copy edit that article, as well as Slipknot. I think that that's the only thing holding Slipknot back from GA status. If you could help me with either slipknot or Arsames, then I'd greatly appreciate it. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

UFC 84
A discussion is happening right now on the fate of UFC 84. Because the outcome of this discussion could affect other MMA event pages and how/when they are created, your input would be greatly appreciated. The discussion is happening here. Thank you for your assistance! Gromlakh (talk) 17:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

logical punctuation
Thx for your enquiry; see my talk page Tony   (talk)  11:02, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Chains
Hey Skeletor2112, thanks for you note, yes it can be disheartning to be on the recieving end of drive by edits from ips or people you never heard of but I'm glad you approved of the edits. I was pleased to see the article nominated and I think you have the guts of a fine article. One thing though, the page seems a little dry yet; it mostly details events and gives little indication of context, interpersonal relationships, or even dammit, drama. There was a lot of drama surruonding AIC, if I was you I'd try an bring this out to put blood on the page and make it more intersting to read. As I say you are almost there, but a little gossip and drama would be nice, as this could be a lot more of a gripping tale. Thanks for all your hard work on a great band. Ceoil (talk) 09:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just saw you note on Sandy's page. If I was you I'd let the nom restart to give you more time to flesh out the article with the kind of detail I mentioned above. I'll be gone for a few days, but can help with a ce when I get back. Maybe you should ask the likes of User:WesleyDodds‎ and the ALTROCK project for help with this, as I said the article is fine as it stands but with a little more work could be great. All the best. Ceoil (talk) 10:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm really swamped up to my neck in college work right now, so I can't devote much time to checking sources etc. Super job on this article, but there are still some things that jump and hit me: what does "although they switched the z in the title to an s" mean? Also, I suggest you take the advice most editors seem to be giving you: take it off FAC for a week or two, then maybe Wesley would also add his source. He is also, to my knowledge, a fantastic writer (see: Joy Division, R.E.M.) and can really bring out the "drama" Ceoil talked about. Also, I will have time to cross-check the references and iron out ce issues. Plus, most importantly, the article will get the FAC it deserves, free from arguments and fights, and neutral (hopefully even non-music) reviewers can also chip in with valuable insight.
 * I must admit though that you took care of all comprehensiveness issues, and the article definitely has improved. For that, I will change my vote to neutral. I'm sorry, but I can't commit more; I hope you understand my standpoint. indopug (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Congrats! Alice has this now. --Efe (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Always welcome. Sure, I will. --Efe (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A late welcome back
Good to hear you're back, which is definitely a coup for heavy metal on Wikipedia. Most of the featured work actually belongs to M3tlhead, whereas I have merely contributed here and there. However, thanks for the compliment. It's a shame your workplace blocked Wikipedia, although nice you can now contribute via laptop. Once you've got back into the swing of things, it'd be great to see what you will eventually work on. To feature Maiden, Sabbath, etc., in my opinion you need printed material. That'll be a difficult job, none the less.

Hope to see you around here and there (I'm mostly busy working on a webzine), and if you need anything just give me a shout. LuciferMorgan (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was told that Wheels of Confusion is actually era strewn, although you're welcome to use that as a source. Chapter excerpts from a Sabbath book are actually available at Rockdetector. It'll indeed be a challenge, so good luck. I think Heaven and Hell would be a particularly good contender for an FA. The webzine I am working on is a small venture called Lucem Fero (google it), so you're free to take a look what's up there. Once work has progressed, I will indeed cast my eyes over it. Do you have an email address I can contact? If I find any info, I can then just email it there. I would much prefer that than posting here, to be honest. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

AIC FA!
YES! It is finally featured! Add thsi to your UP! &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 03:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Alright, I kranked out another AiC deal. Would you mind commenting? Featured list candidates/Alice in Chains discography &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
Hey there. Welcome back. I'm having pretty much the same problems as you have had getting on here lately and am not as active as before. However, the Motorhead FA was a major boost which nevertheless sees me still not contributing as much as I would like (apart from deleting messages from the above bot!). Hopefully I will be back to full strength soon (but I have said that before!) as I'm actually still listening to music and could add a few more things to this ole encyclo if I had the means. Nice to hear from you. Metal warriors! – B.hotep u/t• 13:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Smith/View Askew
I will be happy to help when I have time to. But I should warn you, the picture is gone because of some copyright thing, we will need to make a new picture for the box ourselves in order for it to work.--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  15:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Template looks great, but I am afraid of the copyright issues for this. I have a feeling someone will tag the image and it will get deleted. I think you need to make something more custom for the image, like IDK how to explain it I am sry, but you can't use the image that is copyrighted by them, even if it is technically a project dedicated towards View Askew.. I don't think I will be able to join the project, honestly with school and stuff I don't even have the time for the Comics Project, but if I get some time I will be happy to help out.--  Phoenix741  (Talk Page)  22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide sales
Thanks for your concern. I appreciate it. It means you want to do what's right for Wikipedia. Here's the problem we're dealing with. It's called "wikiality" and it's not just a Stephen Colbert joke. It's real. What is happening is that worldwide sales figures are being invented by Wikipedia editors, added to articles like AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and many others, and then they remain there unchanged for months without a single cite.

Look at the page histories and you will see that this is true. Then "reputable" publications use Wikipedia as a source for their articles on these bands and take these worldwide sales figures as the truth. Then these false sales figures get reported in sources that meet WP:RS criteria and there you have it. Wikiality.

How do I know I'm right? Because it's a fact that that AC/DC figure of 150 million albums sold appears for the first time in the AC/DC wikipedia article without a supporting citation and stays there for months because wikipedia editors like us aren't doing their job. Find a source that predates it. You can't. There isn't one.

It's the exact same situation with Led Zeppelin's 300 million claim. Go to the Led Zeppelin talk page and you'll see a discussion where I explain exactly what's going on, point out exactly when the 300 million sales claim was added to the article and the IP address of the known vandal who added it. It predates every subsequent mention in sources that meet WP:RS criteria by many months.

Where do the figures come from? Mere wiki editors without citations. The current citations all postdate their arrival on Wikipedia. They come from the imaginations of fans of AC/DC, Led Zeppelin and so on. Prove me wrong. Find a source that predates their arrival on Wikipedia. If you can't, you know I'm right.

And here's something else to consider - there is no organization that tracks worldwide sales. You'll notice that all the current sources claiming these worldwide sales figures make no mention of where the figure comes from. When they report US sales they say that it comes from the RIAA. There's nothing for worldwide sales. They're all sheer speculation. They have no business being presented in an encyclopedia as fact.

So please join me in fixing this debacle. Thanks for reading. 74.77.222.188 (talk) 07:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Black Sabbath rewrite
Hi Skeletor, did you happen to read on Sab's talk page about my proposed remake of the page? If you didn't, I was thinking about separating the page into four different main parts: the Ozzy era, the Dio era, the constantly-rotating lineup era, and all subsequent reunions. I thought this would better represent the band as they were very different during each incarnation. However, almost everyone on the talk page disagreed with my proposal, so I put it off for a while. Do you think you could help me with this at all? I am very interested in getting Black Sabbath up to FA status, because I've never participated in it before. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks good so far. I think that your ideas might actually be better - I was just going to reword some All Music Guide reviews into my own words combined with knowledge of the songs from personal listenings. And use AMG as the source. Hey, what book do you have about Black Sabbath - I didn't even know that there were major literature publications on that band. Dark Executioner (talk) 12:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, anything you need help on, I am willing to help. I wanted to rewrite the page myself, but couldn't find any books. After AiC I think that you and I make a pretty good team. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 23:34, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AiC discog is done for the most part. It will probably be promoted really soon. I'm kind of diddlying around with getting a few bands to GA, but I am going to refine United Abominations soon, and I really want to get Opeth to FA sometime soon. I am working on Down (band) right now for GA, but after that I should probably finish United Abominations. I wouldn't mind if you helped. I mostly retrieve sources and type, but I think you are really good at restructuring senences and that sort of stuff. I can't do anything right now because I am actually at school. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 15:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I finished Down in a few hours. Would you mind doing your schwing with United Abominations? Here's a link to help: Peer review/United Abominations/archive1 I would really like to get that to GA or higher. It is my first album article so I don't quite ave the hang of it. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 02:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * [message left before this] Man I think I'm starting to get burnt out here. I log on and surf pages and not know what to start a project on. Maby I just need to wait a bit. Wikipedia is a really fun thing to do. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 19:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why did you take such a long break? I really want to take Opeth to FAC, do you have any ideas? I think the style section needs to be added to some more. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 01:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [message left before this] Would you mind doing your schwing with Opeth. Once it has a good prose refinery—copyedit or whatever you want to call it, I think I am going to take it to FAC. I think it's done. I've gotten a lot of compliments on it. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 04:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * On another look, I actually think the article looks really good. Featured article candidates/Opeth &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey man, just as a heads up, you go quite a long while without some sourcing on Sabb sometimes. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 01:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, go for the book. The more the marrier. I seem to pick hard article that don't have any books published on them! Opeth is so much easier than AiC. &mdash; Burningclean <sub style="color: red;">&#91; Speak the truth! &#93; 19:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:DeathAngelNEW.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:DeathAngelNEW.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) 05:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Am I Not Needed Here on Wikipedia?
Every time I make an edit on a page like Machine Head, Slayer, Pantera, etc., no matter how small it is (could be just a gramatical change), it seems to ALWAYS be reverted by either Burningclean or M3tal H3ad. I've been an editor here for a while, and I know that most of what I add on band's main pages is useful information here. I helped rewrite the Slipknot, Korn and Pantera articles and the changes stayed.

However, I feel like the two users I mentioned above are just taking charge of Wikipedia and reverting anyone's edits that contrast with their idea of what the page should look like. It's very annoying. All I want to do is help out and all my edits that those guys see get reverted. I include sources in ALL of my major edits to the page.

Which brings me to my final point... Am I no longer needed here b/c of the "impressive" edit skills of users like them (And countless others)? I try to reason w/ these people and all I get is one-sided, pig-headed ignorance. Thanks for hearing me out. Dark Executioner (talk) 02:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for posting, I was seriously considering not ever logging back in because of how frustrated those two users made me a couple of days ago.

That's the problem, though! There's a TON of itty bitty articles here on albums/bands that I love, and yes, I have helped improve a lot of them. I have been trying to help expand the Slayer and Machine head articles, these are the ones that those 2 users bitched at me the most for. And on the MH article, I was mainly correcting sentences and fixing misspelled words. I also helped fix the infobox as it was not really that organized. For some reason Burningclean thought that it was best to revert my edits. I would help the article in a much more productive way, but new info on MH and Slayer both is infrequent. I just want to help be a part of an FA/GA thing.

Speaking of that, I wouldl ike for you to check the following pages out for a possible GA/FA: Korn, Slipknot, Pantera, Six Feet Under, Children of Bodom/Blooddrunk, and Dying Fetus. Thanks. Dark Executioner (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:DeathAngelNEW.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:DeathAngelNEW.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Geniac (talk) 11:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

FA/GA possibilities, dude!
I will gladly assist you in getting Pantera up to GA, as they are one of my FAVORITE BANDS EVER!!!! I would also like to get Six Feet Under to GA status. My question for you is: how do you nominate an article for GA? I haven't the slightest clue. Dark Executioner (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I have started the peer review with Six Feet Under!! Spread the word!!!! Dark Executioner (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for commenting on the SFU peer review page! Yes, I would like you to assist me in removing some weasel words and POV, and replacing it with more generalized, encyclopedic passages instead. No rush, but the earlier you can help, the better. Again, thanks, Dark Executioner (talk) 18:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UFC47.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UFC47.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:UFC37.jpg
I have tagged Image:UFC37.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:UFC35.jpg
I have tagged Image:UFC35.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:UFC42.jpg
I have tagged Image:UFC42.jpg as no rationale, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Some examples can be found at Use rationale examples. Please also consider using or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags/Non-free. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:UFC25.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:UFC25.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 22:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review/Irreplaceable/archive1
Are you not busy? Would you please see this peer review? Thanks. --Efe (talk) 09:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * If you ever have a free time and wants to review the article, please direct to its talk page. The peer review process was already closed. Thanks. --Efe (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've addressed most of your comments and I left a reply about the first one. I will go over to stubby sentences and some merging later if I'm done with stuffs in real life. If ever you have more concerns, please state it in the page. Tony1 is opposing and it's going to be serious. =) --Efe (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please re-check the FAC page. I left comments there. Just reflect any querries/comments/objections you have. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable =) --Efe (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The article is now featured. Thanks for the help and leave me a message if you have more concerns. --Efe (talk) 01:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Its fine; I was waiting for other reviewers to settle the sourcing issues before going into copy editing, but, surprisingly, Tony1 striked out his oppose to "cautious neutral" which led to the promotion of the article. If some part of it does not suit your taste or the general, please visit the page and just hit the edit button. Thank you so much and I'll look forward to you in my endeavors. --Efe (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Six Feet Under music samples
The article should have some songs to listen to, man! I'm not sure how to do this, tho. What I had in mind was to get something like "4:20," "Victim of the Paranoid," "Zombie Executioner," "Doomsday" or maybe even their version of Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze" from Dogpile.com, and post it on the page. Could you help me out with this? Dark Executioner (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I've kinda stopped working on the page for a few days because I was getting burned out. But I will resume when I'm ready! Okay, I'll try uploading some samples of my own... I have some stored on my Windows Media Player, could I put those onto Wikipedia? Dark Executioner (talk) 19:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

SYL
Hi! Would you mind looking at the Strapping Young Lad article, it's currently at peer review, if you happen to have some free time? And, of course, interested in bringing this up to FA level. Thanks. Gocsa (talk) 21:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)