User talk:Retrohead/Archive 2

Kill 'Em All

I don't suppose you would be able to get the Kill 'Em All article semi-protected?—so as to prevent all the random IP edits in which they constantly replace Hammett with Mustaine. This happens at least once a week, and is rather irritating. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to get it done.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

This guy is yet another reason as to why the article sorely needs some kind of protection dealy. He seems to come back every few weeks to do the same bulk-edits to all of Metallica's studio albums. And obviously there's this usual bullshit as well. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I also suspect it's a single user who loves to vandalize the album articles. Unfortunately, I can't do much more than nominating Kill 'Em All for semi-protection again. I just don't get the point in persistently adding fake information and distracting other editors.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Source

I'm not sure how reliable Metal Storm is, but here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but all reviews by Metal Storm on the page have that "Guest review by" tag on top, so I think it's better not to include any of it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Staff reviews are acceptable (WP:ALBUMS/SOURCE), but their lists are (registered)user-generated, with those number rankings on the side based on user votes. Dan56 (talk) 00:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Justice ... took thrash to its logical conclusion". GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I included a quote by Christopher Knowles which is very similar to this. But I don't want to play Dan's game and waste my time tracking sources on issues that are that obvious. By the way, it seems that his hobby is pushing his point of view (on the genre as always) as a fact on every album he edits. And when another editor disagrees with him, he calls them "genre-warriors" and slaps them with warning notes, directly causing animosity and discouraging new Wikipedians to edit Wikipedia. Check Talk:Black Sabbath (album)#Genres, Talk:Crime of the Century (album)#Genre (Progressive Rock), Talk:All Things Must Pass#Rosen quote.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:04, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Pointing out articles that had unsourced genres before I cleaned them up with review prose and sourced genres based on that prose? Fine by me. Dan56 (talk) 04:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

AJFA

Hey Vic, got your question about AJFA. I've been pretty busy lately, so haven't had much time for editing. I'll try to take a look and see what I do with it, when I get some time look it over.

Have a good one!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 16:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks pal, it's always to hear from you.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the badass award bro. Can't take all the credit though--User:M3tal H3ad and User:LuciferMorgan did quite a bit. I just got eleven of the articles to GA so the discography could be a good topic. Regardless I appreciate it!!! CrowzRSA 16:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Liar, Hook in Mouth and Insomnia

Hey, what's your opinion on Liar and Hook in Mouth? I'm thinking that it would be best to merge both to So Far, So Good... So What!, especially for the latter one.

Also, what's your take on Insomnia? I'm going to merge that into Risk, unless you think there might be a good reason to keep it. It is a single, but it just isn't that notable really, IMO.

Have a good one --L1A1 FAL (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey L1, good to hear from you. Sure, if you can merge those both songs to the album would be nice. As for Insomnia, I think we can leave it for now. Unless I find some additional sources, we can always merge it with Risk. The Mechanix is worrying me a bit. That song is already explained in the articles about Megadeth and Metallica, not to mention their debut albums. I suggest to merge that song instead of Insomnia.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, been a while. I've been busy. I agree on "Insomnia" for now. Maybe merge it in the future, depending on what happens.

Also, wanted to let you know, I just merged four song articles into Countdown and Youthanasia: "Skin o' My Teeth" (no meaningful content), "Foreclosure of a Dream" (no meaningful content), "Sweating Bullets" (not much there, but maybe good to resurrect at some point in the future? Merged for now though.), and "Train of Consequences" (no meaningful content).

Hope stuff's going well!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for merging them. I was going to do the same sooner or later, but I've been busy with reviewing some articles and making corrections over the first two albums. If it's not too much, can you make some adjustments or comment at Megadeth awards? The FA candidature doesn't seem to draw much attention.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: IPs

I'd suggest getting a page-protection from WP:RPP for all the articles affected by the IP(s). They should understand, since it'll be harder to get those IPs blocked. Dan56 (talk) 02:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Moser and Crawford book

Name: Rock Stars Do The Dumbest Things URL

Or did you want me to add that to the Megadeth article myself? 97.83.67.162 (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, sources that are more of an analysis of a band's musical style isn't very common and quick mentions like that are far more common. There's no rule that subjective characterizations must be sourced by sources that analyze them. And not really. I looked for what sources to choose. Both genres are supported by many sources. 97.83.67.162 (talk) 19:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure. "When a drunken Hetfield kicked Mustaine's dog, a drunken Mustaine punched Hetfield and left the band (Metallica). Mustaine went on to form his own heavy metal band, Megadeth." The reason I added all four citations was for good measure. How many do you think there should be?

What about that Countdown to Extinction issue? I saw another source that explicitly says it's a heavy metal album rather than a thrash metal album. I can't remember where it was. I'll have to find it again. So, that's two sources that are in favor of heavy metal there, rather than thrash metal, which I think should be added as a secondary genre.

Also, I see you reverted me at Risk. Well, the LA Times review actually supports Risk being a heavy metal album. 97.83.67.162 (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• For Megadeth→remove the third and fourth reference
• For Countdown to Extinction→if you have references, you can open a discussion at the talk page
• For Risk→since I initiate the changes, I'll open a discussion at the talk page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I just removed those. I'll go comment at the Risk talk page. 97.83.67.162 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I commented. You should have tried doing that in the first place, rather than attempting to remove the genre. Just because other genres besides those two are supported by some sources does not mean you should reduce it to only one genre. 97.83.67.162 (talk) 11:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Will comment there, thanks for raising this issue.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

RE: Which part of...

Tell that to your new friend ([1]). Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Haven't seen that edit. I'll read the column and see what's the case.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Pleeezzzzzeee. You're just using that article to get back at me. Dan56 (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It's the same goddammnnn thing. You have your point of view you're pushing at the Metallica album article and he has his POV he's pushing at the Hendrix album article. So predictable when dealing with rock music editors. Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Left you a question at the talk page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan56

I'm in no way suggesting that you should file a report, but if you think that Dan's problematic editing is the stuff of ANI, I will be sure to weigh-in there. I have some serious concerns about his genre bullying, plagiarism, and his use of false sources to secure genres in articles. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to open a report, but if someone else starts a report, i will voice my opinion for sure.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 23:03, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Right. I could see a topic ban from genres in Dan's future if he doesn't start collaborating. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:04, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If I filed an RFC/U on Dan, would you be interested in co-signing? We have several editors that all agree on this one particular point. I would like to see Dan agree in writing to stop edit warring over genres, and other than ANI I don't know of any other way to encourage that agreement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:49, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, sure. Just leave me a link on my talk page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:50, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I'm going to collect the diffs and wait to see if Dan is responsive to our concerns before staring an RFC/U. I'm not an expert on them by any means, but I think at least three people have tried to resolve this specific concern with him on his talk page this week, so I think that's all we need to start one. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree to wait and see if he had learned his lesson.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Speed metal

Oh, sorry. I thought that you removed Thrash metal, didn't saw the Speed metal thing. ABC paulista (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Elisunshine01 and I appreciate the time you took to assess the article Pink Moon! Pugsly8000 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, your work on the article is also appreciated.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

FL question

Hey Vic, got your request on my talk page. I wasn't really sure what you wanted me to do, but I did make a few changes to the Megadeth awards page, as per the suggested changes. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Self-published source : Scaruffi's reviews

The consensus reached on January 2014 is clear https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews : Scaruffi's reviews are wp:self-published sources and don't respond to our wiki guidelines. They are not wp:reliable. Consequently, all his reviews are going to be removed in the next weeks by several contributors. If someone didn't apply this decision and put back Scaruffi's reviews on articles, an administrator would be contacted promptly. A first warning message would be posted on the talk of the contributor like it was already the case for this person here. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Soul_Crusher#Verdict_is_in_-_he.27s_unusablehttps://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Soul_Crusher#Piero_Scaruffi_Verdict Woovee (talk) 16:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@Woovee: Can't we use common sense and ignore the rules since removing Scaruffi will damage the articles? I participated in that discussion and opposed his inclusion in album articles, but if there aren't more suitable reviews, I think we can rely on him too.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megadeth

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Megadeth you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CrowzRSA -- CrowzRSA (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

GAN

Hey Vic, since this nomination didn't go anywhere, would you be at all willing to take up the review at GA2? If not that is perfectly fine. I just have quite a few articles up for GAN that haven't been reviewed yet months later and I would like to see at least one get done. STATic message me! 04:11, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I'll have a look at it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 15:30, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch, if you have any questions feel free to ask. If you are also questionable on what is or is not a reliable source in the genre, WP:ALBUM/SOURCES can be helpful, if you were not already aware of that page. STATic message me! 16:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, it might come handy in some debates. Anyway, I wanted to ask if you want the review to be posted step by step or all at once?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:16, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, glad to show you, I know a lot of long-term users here are not aware of that link until someone shows them. And what ever is easiest for you man, it seems to be going fine now, but if you want to review it all it once I should be able to get everything done shortly. It would probably be easier for you rather then keep coming back to it too. STATic message me! 22:26, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Now why did you not place it "on hold"?? I could have addressed those two minor things and fixed it in a day or two... The only reason I did not fully address the refs yet is I assumed you would place it on hold like every reviewer does for things that can easily be fixed. STATic message me! 16:00, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought it would have taken you longer to re-write the prose and fix all those references. I assumed that those issues could not be done in a couple of days since they require some serious amount of work. But don't worry, when you address the notes I'll be glad to promote it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 17:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

If I put my mind to it, I am pretty sure it will get done in a couple days. Are you asking me to address the "notes" or "Criteria that were not met." I was under the impression I addressed all the notes. STATic message me! 17:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I meant the criteria. My estimation was that the prose and reference formatting needed a deep reconstruction that would take you a while and decided it was the best to renominate the article after the issues were done. Again, sorry if the verdict was somehow unexpected.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorta shocked me, but going through the first few sections it does not seem that bad, but I know what are you referring to. WP:REFLINKS really can jack up some references sometime. But either way it will be getting done soon, but I would rather it just be on hold while I do this, rather than having to wait 3+ months for another person to take the review up. STATic message me! 18:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

So any glaring issues? I believe I have taken care of anything, but let me know any specific things and I shall fix it. STATic message me! 20:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You still have one link from Billboard that's not formatted, while ref number 50 contains some errors. Second thing, explain exactly who directed "Beware" since there isn't an article about that artistic group on Wiki. Another thing that caught my eye was the last sentence from "Background". You need comma after "lists" and slight re-wording, let's say "including MTV, XXL (who ranked it fourth by), and Complex, which ranked it eleventh." As for the references, you need to add the actual magazine, (example→work=Spin, publisher=Spin Media). Anyway, when you're done with the corrections, you can submit another nomination.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have now taken care of everything you stated here. Are you going to review it once I open up another nomination? STATic message me! 03:09, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I wouldn't leave the job halfway through.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Good to know my man. Ill drop the link here when its up. STATic message me! 15:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There you go buddie. STATic message me! 20:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth final thoughts

Sorry for the delay on the GA. I put one final comment on the GAN page which needs to be addressed before it can pass. CrowzRSA 23:06, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Megadeth

The article Megadeth you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Megadeth for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CrowzRSA -- CrowzRSA (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Megadeth

Victuallers (talk) 20:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk page violation

This does not qualify for violating SHOUT as it was not excessive, but your actions violate the section immediately below it: "Generally, do not alter others' comments, including signatures. Exceptions are described in the next section." Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I have altered the comment by placing it in small letters like all the other posts? The verb "altered" means to change the content or the meaning of the comment, which I obviously haven't done. Have you read WP:IMRIGHT? Casting your opinion in capital letters won't make it true, you know.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Blood (Anthrax song)

For an example perhaps you would like to check the history of this redirect. Maybe you should check what other editors are doing. I will, as other editors will, continue to add year of song, artist(s) and year of creation to redirects - including for artists you think you curate and own. The only way to stop this is to have the guideline changed. If you revert me again I mark it as vandalism. Do you want to revert you last edit on Blood now? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually it should be a redirect for deletion, not an article, because it's not an article. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Cheers, --Richhoncho (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Megadeath

I am sorry, but almost all the song, album, band, and singer reviews have been R&B and Classic Rock. I don't know enjoy doing that thrash metal type stuff.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hah, no problem buddy. I remember I saw your name somewhere at the GA listing, and that's why I called you at the first place. Anyway, since you've been here longer than me, can you recommend another editor who might be interested in doing the review?--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth

Thanks for the barnstar! Incidentally, I did have a few questions about the article. I suppose it's not technically "done" per se, because I wanna clarify a few things:

• The phrase "prominent to thrash metal" in the lead is kind of awkward, but I didn't fix it because I didn't know what it was trying to say.
• As far as verbs for subjects of entities comprising more than one person, I go with the British way of using plural forms of verbs (e.g. "the Beatles are", "Nirvana were", "U2 are", etc.) but I noticed while the article mostly sticks to the American way ("Megadeth is", "Nirvana was", etc.) it does occasionally flip-flop to the British way, and not always in a way I can easily fix it (e.g. sometimes it just says "they were" and it would be awkward to say "it was" where "it" is the band). Should we stick to the American way for the article, and just leave their subject pronoun as "they" whenever they're not referred to by name?
• There may have been a few things I missed, particularly overlinking band member names and over-italicizing tour names (not entirely sure where the MOS stands on this but I do not italicize tour names and so detalicized what I saw). But I can't guarantee I got all of them, there may be a few I missed.

If I can help with anything else, just let me know! LazyBastardGuy 15:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, nothing, it was the least I can do. About the first point, the clause "prominent to thrash metal" was added by the GA reviewer, CrowzRSA, and according to me, it makes the article to sound repetitive to a certain degree. I mean, thrash metal is mentioned at least ten times in the "legacy" section. About the "was vs were" issue, I think we should stick to the American way, because the band is coming from that country. Of course, there are a few situations, as you pointed, where we can't always label the band with it. I remember that during the GA review, CrowzRSA told me to be careful not to overlink the band members and record labels, which obviously slipped out of my sight. I think you were correct when you deitalicized the tours, I've might overlooked that too.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth messup

I accidentally obliterated the Megadeth article. I've reverted, but it wouldn't allow me to revert with "archiveurl=http://archive.is/c3cQ%7Carchivedate=May 30, 2012" in it—apparently archive.is is blocked per Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

@Curly Turkey: Is that a bad thing? I can return the archived url links (by reverting to the revision prior your edits), but that way all the copyediting you've done will be lost.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's what I'm trying to say—when I tried to revert, the revert was blocked. I just wanted to tell you so you didn't think I was randomly removing sources. Whether it's a bad thing or not I'll leave to you to judge. Curly Turkey (gobble) 20:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry, the last thing I would do is suspect that you were trying to damage the page.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth - Early days

Hey Vic, I read over the section you were talking about, and I took the liberty of going a little farther. I did a bit more rewording, and I split the second paragraph up, because it seemed like there were just two completely different ideas in it. Feel free to revert any part of it if you see fit.

Also, you might want to see if you can add the story of Mustaine and Ellefson's initial meeting into that area of the page. Seems like it would be relevant right about there. I would put it in myself, but I don't have a source to cite from.

Have a good one!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 10:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

@L1A1 FAL: Go ahead and add the story yourself if you're able to. We got the entire Ellefson biography available on Google Books and I can cite the information myself. By the way, thanks for the corrections, the article isn't far away from becoming an FA.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 13:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

PSBWB

Hey, I checked my copy of the 2004 CD. "Recorded at The Music Grinder, L.A., CA; Mixed at Can-Am Records, Tarzana, CA; Additional recording at Track Records, Rock Steady Studios, L.A., CA; And at Maddog Studios, Venice, CA; Feb, 15. 1986 - Mar. 20, 1986" That's cited from pg 4 of the 2004 liner notes(if you need to add the cite, I'm sure the booklet is already cited in there somewhere, so you can just add pg 4 if you need to. It would appear that the majority of the recording was done at Music Grinder. Hope I helped.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth 2

Hey Vic, I am going to try to take care of the paraphrasing thing tonight. It was on my agenda last night, but I was tired and fell asleep early. Take care --L1A1 FAL (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. I believe the CTE one is a little too much detail for the band article, but nevertheless, paraphrased it. I did include brief (but useful) bits of the original quotes in both paraphrasings though.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:01, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Hidden Treasures and more

Hey Vic, good work so far with the FA on Megadeth. Save for Rust in Peace and Peace Sells (both of which are presently pending), we've gotten all the studio albums up to GA status. It got me thinking though, what about Hidden Treasures? Its not a proper studio album, but it still sort of is at the same time (kinda on the fence, since its just an EP). Anyway, what do you think we should do with that? I would doubt that there are a great deal of sources, save perhaps for a handful of archived reviews, or an interview with Dave or Jr, maybe. CrowzRSA got the Haunting the Chapel EP to GA, with only a few sources, but that one has a bit more of a reputation

I'm not going to be doing anything with it for the immediate future (got enough on my plate at the moment), but starting to think about what else to tackle. As far as all the albums go, here's what I think the next highest priority pages are:

• Hidden Treasures
• Countdown to Extinction: Live
• Rust in Peace Live
• That One Night: Live in Buenos Aires
• Greatest Hits: Back to the Start

Additionally, pending GA approval of PSBWB and RIP, I'm thinking about exploring the possibility of getting all the Megadeth studio records recognized as a Good Topic. Again though, that's something I'll explore down the road.

What's your thoughts on the matter?

Happy editing, and keep up the good work!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Geez, haven't really thought what to edit as soon as we're finished with the FA on Megadeth. I remember I've began editing the EP article some time in October last year, but eventually abandoned it because it lacked reviews and information about the recording process. But that will probably be on the top of my to-do list when all the other albums achieve GA status. A good thing is that big portions of David Ellefson's biography are available on Google Books, so I might add some info there as well.

As for the GA topic on the studio albums, you might be able to get that through, because I've seen multiple collection of those (Pearl Jam, Slipknot, ect). I'm not familiar with that procedure, but you definitely got my support. Good luck!--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I saw you added a review to Hidden Treasures. I put a small mention of that into the article prose. Also, I did a restructuring of the article. I put the songs as a "background and songs" section ahead of the "release" section. did a little rewording here and there too. Feel free to revert if you disagree. I'm not sure what I think about it anyway. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 14:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a little more minor reworking of Hidden Treasures, and I got to looking at it, and save for 2 or 3 missing citations, its actually a pretty tidy little article. It MIGHT be submittable for a GA sometime in the not so distant future. It isn't a large article by any means, but it's actually larger than the Haunting the Chapel article (which is a GA), and already has more cited sources. Take care!--L1A1 FAL (talk) 01:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Great! I've listed the article for a B-class assessment, and asked the potential reviewer to make a statement whether the EP fullfils the basic GA criteria. Good luck.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Sample created

Hello again,

It's here: File:Megadeth - Peace Sells.ogg. I may have to tweak it, as it came out with a slightly higher bit rate than expected. I forgot to to the math prior to uploading it. Let me know if you'd like it reduced, Dawnseeker2000 23:53, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Dawnseeker2000, big thanks for your help. I've already incorporated the sample into the article. Glad that we finally have an excerpt of this track. Enjoy the record and everything the best. If some of the reviewers require modifying it, I won't hesitate to call you. Cheers!--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth: Lists in infobox

You probably noticed a while back that I put {{Flatlist}}s in the infobox for Megadeth. Another editor finds them ugly, as on some browsers the dot that appears between items appears at the beginning of a line (I don't think that's supposed to happen). There are a couple of solutions: one is to use {{Plainlist}}, which would put each item (genre, etc) on a separate, unbulleted line; another is to revert them to a comma-separated list.

The templates add semantic information to the lists: it tells the browser that it is a list, while the comma-sparated list only appears as a list to humans. For that reason, I prefer the semantic markup (it can aid those with disabilities, for example, or allow machines to better understand what the information is supposed to be), but there's no rule to have the semantic markup. How would you prefer to handle the lists in the infobox? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 07:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and must admit, I've also found it looking weird (in aesthetical way). Isn't there any option that allows us to use those templates without showing the dot between the items? I acknowledge that the computer better understands those lists, but they might appear unusual to the reader.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

{{Plainlist}} gives a vertical list with no dots—that's what I had used for the group members list at the end of the infobox. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:35, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, if that settles the case, use it then.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you check the edits TheSickBehemoth is making to the associated acts? Are they legit? Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 11:54, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I've made the changes to the associated acts. Saw the profiles of the current band members on Megadeth's website and added Nevermore as Broderick's previous band. I omitted OHM because Poland has been in multiple bands since he left Megadeth and listing just one doesn't seemed logical. But his changes to the genres are counterproductive, I believe, and might trigger an edit war over the topic.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 11:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for all the great copy-editing help on Alfred V. Verville in assisting in getting it ready for a WP:GAN! Superb! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Heads up

Hey, keep an eye out for edits by IP 89.205.38.27. Removing and altering cited content without explanation in some of the Megadeth and Anthrax articles.--L1A1 FAL (talk) 12:17, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I was preoccupied finding reviewers for the Megadeth FAC and totally forgot to watch those pages.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 12:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth

I'll try to have a look later, but I've not done an FA in a few years, so I'm not sure how much help I'll be. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for accepting the invitation. The nomination has been inactive in the last week, so any comments are welcomed.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 19:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

My "holiday"

Hi! I noticed you dropped me a line. Yeah, I said I was going on wikibreak, but there have been a few nitpicks that have drawn me back into it, things that I couldn't let wait until I came back in about a month or so. Perhaps I'm more accurately in "semi-retirement", which doesn't always lead to full-on retirement and one could come back from it to something more active. I won't change the template, though.

Anyway, I will give your request some thought. Thanks for letting me know! LazyBastardGuy 02:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Message for you

Even though the review hasn't finished yet and its result is Peter's call, I'd like to give a big thanks for your input at Talk:Katy Perry/GA4. My goal is to have this as "Today's featured article" for her 30th birthday this upcoming October 25th, so I'll probably need all the input for improvement as I can get. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ambitious intention. Good luck achieving it.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is ambitious. I'll have to get the article to FA at least one month ahead of time. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at these links, should ISBN-10 or ISBN-13 be used?:

• Katy Perry by Noam Friedlander
• Katy Perry: Rebel Dreamer by Alice Hudson
• Katy Perry: A Biography by Kimberly Dillon Summers

Sam and I were simply not sure which is better. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

GOCE

Please add the GOCE template to the talk page of Stefan Löfven. And thank you for editing the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth archival

Don't worry about the archival—it was more or less inevitable after the amount of time it had spent without a support from anyone. I'm going to go through the comments from the FAC review and find the ones that haven't been addressed and copy & paste them onto the Megadeth talk page. You have to wait two weeks before putting the article back up for FAC anyways, so let's see what we can do with the article in that time. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 20:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries, I didn't plan to re-nominate it until July. When you work quite a while on one particular article you gradually get bored with it. I'm currently doing a copyedit, so starting tomorrow, I'll be going with the rest of the notes.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth edits

Hi, thank you for the message, this paragraph is copied from the link I sent you.

Column headers for chart positions should be an English-language abbreviation of the chart's country of origin, not the name of the individual chart. The exception to this rule, however, is in cases where two columns are from the same country, such as component or competing charts. In these cases, the column header should start with an abbreviation of the country, followed by an abbreviation of the chart name. In all cases, the column header should be wikilinked to the specific chart's page, or if the chart does not have a page, then to the country's page. In the case of multiple charts, "comprehensive" does not necessarily mean an exhaustive list of countries and charts the artist has charted on. A limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested, using any combination of country, component, or competing charts. There is no set inclusion criteria for which charts should and shouldn't be included, but a good rule of thumb is to go by the relative success of the artist on that chart.

So while there is no rules to say there must be no more than 10 it recommended it and the 3 countries I removed one was unsourced and the other two didn't have many albums charted. Kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Correct. The key words are: "Limit of approximately 10 separate charts is suggested". (nothing compulsory nor required). Second thing, if the majority of the albums didn't chart in some country, that's not a reason to remove than country from the list.--Retrohead (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I am glad we are discussing it because we won't get anywhere otherwise, I was trying to make the writing less cramped and it really is not needed to have 13 countries listed check out any discography page and very few have more than 10. Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

All of the countries listed there are major music markets, and all if them are properly sourced (dead links doesn't mean no references). The argument "other stuff exists" doesn't matter much per WP:OSE. And one last thing, the discography page passed FAC quite a while, which means no other editors opposed having 13 countries in it.--Retrohead (talk) 17:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will leave the countries alone, I think the formats should be removed again though as they are incomplete and wrong in places and are unneeded it just makes the chart look cramped and untidy (see Thin Lizzy discography) to see how tidy it can look, kind regards Lukejordan02 (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Number 1 do you know if it against the rules to complain about people without alerting the? And 2nd please don't lie about me I haven't removed any countries since and agreed they should be left alone I haven't removed any videos so that is another lie and the demo was only in the infobox and was confusing as there is no other mention of it on the page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you make any further lies about me I will report you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Like I have explained fuck no's how many times the edits I have made are not disruptive and I am willing to discuss it is You that isn't. Lukejordan02 (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You have just sent me a good faith template message care to explain the reason? Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that note is based primary on the language you've used when commenting me at WP:ANI.--Retrohead (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Please elaborate further, what language I have not swore at you or called you names, the only 1 use of language I have even used is "Like I have explained fuck no's how many times" which may be a little blunt but it certainly isn't breaking any rules and I am I titled to freedom of speech as long as I am not insulting or abusing anyone. Lukejordan02 (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Desolate North

Do I get a right of reply, here? If you're nominating articles I've written for delisting, the polite (to put it mildly) thing to do would be to tell me about it. J Milburn (talk) 17:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dude, wasn't aware that you've edited the article. I wanted to post a message at heavy metal project, but since that is inactive in a while, I thought I won't receive any feedback.--Retrohead (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Do I sound like I give a fuck what you're aware of? I nominated the article and you can easily see my name in the article history. If you're too dense to become aware of these things, you shouldn't be editing. I'm reverting you. If you disagree with me, start the process again and do it properly. I will not be editing again tonight. J Milburn (talk) 17:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The GAR won't be closed. The smartest thing you can do is correct the issues raised at the GAR and re-nominate it again. By the way, a GA review structured of only one sentence stating: "The article is well written, it's complete and helpful and surely satisfy all the GA guidelines." is an argument more to seek reassessment. The reviewer is definitely three times more "dense" than me to pass an article in that poor condition.--Retrohead (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The GAR has already been closed. You closed it. I'm here to tell you how inappropriate that was. This isn't difficult. And don't you dare tell me what the "smartest" thing I can do is- you have absolutely no right to lecture me. Now, are you going to self-revert, or do I have to take this further? J Milburn (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth again bit the dust

Megadeth has once again failed it's FAC! I don't wish to take part in anything concerning it, but do you think that for its next FA attempt, the resolved comments from previous FAC's will help? Not that I want to take part in it, but I want to know more about how FACs work. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I am currently finishing the rest of the notes, as you can see here. In my opinion, an additional pair of eyes on the prose will be helpful too. And what do you mean it failed the FAC once again? This was my first time nominating the article.--Retrohead (talk) 15:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually I'm wrong. Though the article did fail FAC before, it was later promoted, only to be demoted a few years later. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Celestiial

I appreciate that Celestiial will need work, but it seems slightly ridiculous to me that you've started on another article you want to see delisted when I'm still waiting on your reply at Desolate North. You say "I don't know what makes you think that this article is on level with the rest of the GAs", but this is despite the fact that you have offered no further criticism and all your prior criticism has been dealt with. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm done with that review. As I said there, I'll leave the decision to someone else.--Retrohead (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you still support delisting? If so, you owe an explanation. If not, could you please make that clear for whoever is closing the review? J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies- I now see that you have struck your delist vote. J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 19:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

You and the other concerned editor were given proper warning. Instead of using the article's talk page as instructed you both continued to revert each others changes. A preventive measure became necessary. In my opinion, when the block expires, it may be best to stay away from this article altogether for a good while. If you would like to continue to discuss the matter in a civil manner, again, use the talk page. It's clear you two are at odds, reverting the page to your desired state accomplishes nothing. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Retrohead (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

MusikAnimal, if I think you're not suitable for an administrator, it would be up to me to convince the others that you shouldn't be, not the other way round. Similarly, if the other side wants to delete two thousand bytes from the page, it is up to him to seek consensus for his action, not on me to seek aproval for reverting. I've tried talking to him, but it seems like a Herculean task to communicate with user who hasn't heard of punctuation, sentence structuring, and has a history in being reported at ANI. When he had the nerve to say I'm "full of crap" at AN3, I'm not getting an impression I'm talking to a well educated person. — Retrohead (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have a policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that he or she was right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'll give you my (totally unsolicited) advice :

• It sucks to have sourced stuff in an FA reverted - I get that.
• There is still no discussion on the talk page. In general, I find when I ping the other editor and start a thread on talk saying "Can [link to editor] explain [actions] more clearly". (eg: Talk:Phil Lynott#Lead), it gets better results than back and forth reverting. You could even link to the discussion from the project page.
• It's only 24 hours. Take a break and come back tomorrow and resume editing. Nobody will think any worse of you for it. I certainly won't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouraging words Ritchie, I appreciate that. But when blocking me, the admins should examine the situation more carefully and realize that talking to a troll is not an easy task. After two unsuccessful attempts ([2], [3]), I don't know whether a third try is going to change anything.--Retrohead (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'd follow the advice of Pompeia and be above suspicion. If you use talk and follow all the right dispute resolution procedures, and the other guy doesn't, then they're far more likely to get blocked than you. Once you gain consensus on talk, then anyone reverting against it can be dragged to WP:DRV, and from my experience, anyone still talking about other editors when it gets to there gets short shrift. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:35, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've given you my rationale. You broke the three-revert rule. I think most admins would have blocked you both right off the bat. It's important to understand, however, this is not a punishment. I mean no harm other than to prevent further disruption of the wiki, which you and the other concerned editor clearly indicated that was going to be an issue. Apologies for any confusion if on my part, and I do thank you for your understanding. — MusikAnimal ^talk 14:37, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood MusikAnimal. And a question if I may: How long does it take the admins to read my request?--Retrohead (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The unblock request template adds a category to your talk page and lists it at Category:Requests for unblock#Pages_in_category. This is simply a backlog; There is no established time frame as to when someone will review your request. Note your block expires no later than 20:59 GMT today. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:14, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth

Hi, I have added the numbers and formats back could you help me to fill in the missing ones please, cheers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 12:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have moved the video albums next to the music videos in a section called videos, I don't want to get into another disagreement after we have sorted everything so I have came here to explain and discuss why I have done it. I have put them all in 1 section the same way a big band such as Kiss or Aerosmith have a seperate article called filmography so that is why, if you have any other.questions or anything please ask. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

They are not part of a so called filmography section. Video album is an album of a filmed concert and falls under "Albums". To have a "Filmography" section, you need to have the members starred in some movie; for example, if Dave Mustaine played in Lord of the Rings, you can add Lord of the Rings in a special section called "Filmography" and credit him with the role he played in the film.--Retrohead (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I know other discographies are not relevant but that's not how it is for other discographies like Aerosmith or Kiss they have there own articles seperate from he discographies called filmography. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've told you above that a filmography is consisted of films. Video albums aren't films. Megadeth hasn't starred in a film.--Retrohead (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry videography is what I mean not filmography. Lukejordan02 (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

As shown here, video albums and music videos are two separate things and should not be grouped under the same heading. I've seen you've been doing this to various discographies, (Metallica, Exodus, Anthrax, Testament, Slayer, Pantera, Mastodon, Machine Head, King Crimson, Devin Townsend, Lamb of God, UFO, Scorpions, Bon Jovi, Phil Collins, Thin Lizzy, and Eagles, among others), which, I assume, wasn't done in a bad spirit. However, when editing featured articles (those who have a star in the top right corner), consider whether these changes are constructive and necessary. Read the instruction at the related wiki-projects, or if you aren't sure, ask someone who frequently works with music discographies. I suggest undoing your edits at the featured lists, because those lists are templates on how a proper encyclopedical list should look like.--Retrohead (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This discography which is one used as an example of how a discography page should look has them separate The Prodigy discography, which just shows that there is no right or wrong answer and it makes it easier for people to see of all the videos are grouped together. Like I said I don't want to get into another war with you, if you want we could ask that other guy for his opinion and whoever he goes with we accept? Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I know music videos and video albums are separate that's why they are both listed on their own just in the same section the same as live albums and studio albums are all listed under albums. Music videos and video albums should be grouped under videos. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

That is the entire point. Video albums are albums, not videos. Ask whoever you want, I'm just telling you my advice.--Retrohead (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing and I'm not telling, I'm asking, do you think its a good idea to ask that bloke for his opinion and then there is a clearer consensus. Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've already told you, ask him if you will.--Retrohead (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean the EPs were on pair with the albums, do you mean they were only sold with the albums and wasn't released separately? Lukejordan02 (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Cryptic Sounds: No Voices in Your Head was released as part of Cryptic Writings, Live at the Cow Palace EP as part of Countdown to Extinction, etc.--Retrohead (talk) 14:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

In case you're interested, I've started this and would appreciate input. Snuggums (talk • contributions) 21:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have some free time this weekend, and I'll take a look at the article.--Retrohead (talk) 21:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, look forward to it :). Snuggums (talk • contributions) 21:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Celestiial

You have a real nerve. You have displayed a severe lack of knowledge of (or outright disdain for) Wikipedia's guidelines, you have shown that your grasp of English is seriously lacking, and you were recently blocked for disruption, but you still think you're qualified to waltz around delisting good articles after you have been told, in no uncertain terms, to go away. You are, without a doubt, a net-negative to Wikipedia. If you care about the project, leave, and do not come back. J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First you have said you will "never bump into me again" and now you're doing just that. I will partially take your advice from here and I will disengage of your way. Second thing–watch your language, this is the last time I tolerate your insults. Comments like [4], [5], and [6] are not acceptable. Third thing, if you feel hatred towards me, don't disturb me and mind your own business. Fourth thing, if you expect me to fall to your level, no thank you, I've already read this. Fifth thing, the block was for edit warring here with an editor who think "he knows best". Sixth thing, do not comment on editors, comment on content. Seventh thing, goodbye and avoid editing this page.--Retrohead (talk) 11:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

First: When you continue to lord it over articles of interest to me, I am not choosing to bump into you, I am having you thrown at me. Second: You want me to "watch my language"? What language are you struggling with now? You won't "tolerate" my "insults"? I'm quivering. Presumably, I have to "tolerate" your idiocy, though? There was no foul language, and, even if there was, I'll fucking swear if I want to. Don't like it? Fuck off. Third: The audacity of telling me to mind my own business when you are the one who has taken it upon yourself to police articles that I have written is utterly mindboggling. Fourth: I don't expect you do anything but go away. Fifth: I don't care. You were blocked for violating Wikipedia policy, and feel the need to act all holier than thou concerning people who claim they "know best", but then turn around and treat me with the disrespect you have? That's laughable. You belong blocked- you're nothing better than a common troll. Sixth: "do comment on editors". Don't worry, I do, especially when they are is incompetent as you. Seventh: Nope, I'm not going to avoid editing any page, especially just because you've told me not to. You don't want to see my edits? Leave the project. The number of times I've told you to leave me alone, and yet you continue to waste my time, only to demand that I leave you alone? You'd be funny if you if you weren't being serious. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Listen mate, I was reading the musicians' GAs, and I saw that Celestiial (which coincidentally was writen by you) had many "citation needed" templates and poor wording. I opened a GAR, informed you about it, and posted comments on what I think should be corrected. You called me a "moron" three times over a spelling mistake (one "m" missing in comma) and wrong wiki link (this is the correct one) and advised me to "fuck off". I closed the GAR since you refused to address the issues and "fucked off" your way. Now you are coming here and schooling me how "idiotic" my contributions to Wikipedia are? Nobody asked you that. By the way, this is what I think of your 34 (now 33) "good" articles.--Retrohead (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Lukejordan02

Sorry I didn't get back to you the other day, I was abroad for a few days. Seems like this one has been sorted out for now anyway. I was a bit frustrated to see his insults towards you in his edit summaries – there's a good editor in there somewhere but he's not learning the necessary lessons, it seems. I worked out a few discographies with him but it was very hard work, although generally his intentions were good. It's a case of the bad outweighing the good though, by the looks of things. Let's see what happens when he's unblocked. Seems like there's quite a bit of fun on this page! Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is always nice to have a relaxed chit chat after a tenacious week. I can also see an enthusiastic editor in Lukejordan02, but unfortunately, he had "the luck" to bump at me. I'll try to avoid heated situations with him, and hope he can make his way in the community. Cheers man!--Retrohead (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

"rv; this was the major reason why the article failed FAC→inconsistency with "they" and "it""

Umm, no, the "they" vs "it" thing was resolved before Eric's oppose. The reason the article wasn't promoted was because it had no supports—a combination of too few reviewers and too many outstanding issues with the prose. The thing is, even FA-quality article get archived if reviewers don't take the time to review it—which happens from time to time, as everyone's a volunteer, and some articles just fail to grab reviewers' attention. For that reason (everyone's a volunteer) it's a good idea not to mass-revert other editors' copyedits when there are only a few things wrong with them—that kind of thing tends to scare people off, and then you end up with fewer willing reviewers. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 21:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the reasons for Erick opposing the promotion was the verbose wording and that issue. To be quite honest, even I wouldn't have supported the article's promotion back then. For your stance that articles get archived if they aren't reviewed by enough people, true, I've seen many of those situations. That's why I'm trying to participate more actively in peer reviews, GA reviews, etc. so that I can create a healthy cooperation with other editors. That given, when I need an input from them, it's more likely I'm going to get it. I'm 100% sure that Ceoil's edits were with good intention, but they simply weren't helpful.--Retrohead (talk) 21:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but your edit comment was that you were reverting over the "they" vs "them" issue, but that wasn't all you reverted—you reverted the whole eight edits. That kind of editing can come off as aggressive, and many editors simply won't return if all their edits are summarily obliterated like that. You should at least be clear about what you're reverting. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

OK

I have done that, can I just take the time to apologise for any offensive language I used at you the other week and say I would like to draw the line and move on I am not a vandal and want to help, I know what I have done wrong in the past, I have took my block and now I want to move on, by the way do you know if it is possible to remove an edit summary as I cringe ever time I see that fuck you comment on the Megadeth discography page. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:50, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to say, the consensus on Youthanasia is clearly not for Thrash Metal I am OK with that, do you want to remove it or shall I? Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about that thing at all, I've seen worse. I think it's up to you to remove the genre. The one who started the debate should have the honor to close it.--Retrohead (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok I will remove it, do I need to write something on the talk page to say it is closed or is that down to someone else? Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

No, just write "per consensus" in the edit summary when you remove the genre.--Retrohead (talk) 22:08, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

I removed it before you wrote that I put removed thrash metal (consensus through talk page) sorry. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't do that Hidden Treasures review thing properly, I did read the link you gave me. Lukejordan02 (talk) 22:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You did it fine. I thought of giving you this task so you can familiarize yourself with the article's quality criteria.--Retrohead (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Your comment on a discussion

Hi, could you take the time to provide your opinion on a discussion over at Talk:Damnation (album) thank you. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Future assistance with a persistent sockpuppet

Since you've tirelessly dealt with thrash metal articles, I thought I'd ask for assistance—in advance—with an annoyance which crops up every few months. Since December 2012 and as recently as March this year, a blocked user by the name of Necroshine95 (and his eight sockpuppets) has gone around making countless bulk-edits to album articles; in particular he favours the bands Overkill, Exodus and Testament almost exclusively.

What he does is add sales figures and nothing else, often making no effort to use proper cite styles and using completely unapproved sources for his claims, such as forums or drawing his own conclusions from the content at hand. Currently I'm in the process of outright removing anything he and his socks have added which make use of forums (example), but the task looks to be long and ardous since his activity has spanned a year and a half, largely without being reverted.

The favour that I ask is if you could check the album articles by those three bands every so often for sales figures being added, as it will most likely be a sock of User:Necroshine95 adding yet more dubious refs that go unnoticed. To date I'm the only one who keeps an eye out for his many 'returns' (the telltale sign is whenever an edit is made to the albums Taking Over and The Years of Decay), but the sheer amount of articles to which he's added crap is tricky to keep track of via watchlists alone. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. When I started editing Killing Is My Business... and Business Is Good! I've also noticed the sales figures were based on some forums of his. I will add those bands on my watchlist and check their accuracy over the next few days.--Retrohead (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I think I've now managed to undo most of his sales figures crap, at least in terms of getting rid of forum-based refs, but it sure was a pain in the ass because three accounts in particular were used to make a huge amount of edits: [7], [8], [9]. If you ever see a sales figure added to an album article, be sure to check the reliability of the ref itself as well as the user's contribs in case they've made a shitload of edits in a small space of time—once that guy gets going, he gets around very quick, and always acts clueless when his refs are dismissed as non-WP:RS. He hasn't bothered with any Megadeth articles for a while, but I'm just letting you know the extent to which he's "contributed" to thrash metal articles in general. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 23:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Teutonic thrash

I found some sources on Teutonic thrash metal: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15].--¿3family6 _contribs 23:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Genre

Why does Metal music get redirected over to Heavy metal? Should we not have the Metal music genre that encompasses all genres?HotHat (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

From an encyclopedical stance, the genre is called "heavy metal". The term "metal music" is largely used by fans and occasionally by some journalists with the same meaning as heavy metal. However, because heavy metal has evolved into numerous subgenres over the years, the media utilized "metal" as an umbrella term for all these subgenres, and began using "heavy metal" to describe the traditional approach to the music.--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi, the Eminem article is isted for a peer review. It would be great if you can leave some comments there. Anyhow, feel free to ignore this.Abhinav0908 (talk) 08:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Megadeth - Risk

Hi, the Megadeth - Risk album page has had genres removed for no explanation I have reverted the IP address, but will not again due to 3RR, he has been writing abusive comments to me and others (on other pages) could you revert the vandalism please? Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lukejordan02: I see that IP-address is blocked now. Regarding that album's genre, I remember there was a discussion about it recently (here it is). Farewell.--Retrohead (talk) 08:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Review

Hi, I'll see if I can take a moment later to check it out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)