User talk:Navnløs/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Black metal has no place on this site.

You have a metal-archives account and listen to burzum. You are too kvlt for me dude. I am sorry I can not keep up with your super pagan powers. Is Odin going to smite me with his gungir? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.216.98.82 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're using the english wikipedia, so I'm gonna assume you are British or American, how kvlt can you possibly be?? Wait a second while I laugh at you...ok, second, why should black metal not have an article on wikipedia? Is the music so very evil and underground that it can't be spoken of and must be kept from the commoners?! If you are so kvlt why are you on wikipedia? Why are you using the internet at all? I never claimed to be "tr00 kvlt," though some of the music I listen to undoubtedly is, but I actually don't listen to burzum. They're alright, but my favorite black metal bands are probably Immortal, Rotting Christ, Bathory and Venom. The fact that you want to keep black metal from other people is utterly useless. How does it feel to know that all your edits were reverted and worthless? You are a troll who wants to purposely vandalise wikipedia, and if you want to truly be kvlt then you wouldn't use the internet at all. Why do you even think you could possibly get away with blanking whole pages on wikipedia? There are a lot of people who feel protective of certain pages, especially ones like black metal. You obviously don't know what you are talking about, and you should really grow up. And how dare you try to insult me. You don't even know me, or the fact that I am extremely crazy. I could say a lot of other things to you but they would only get me banned from wikipedia, and I enjoy helping this site too much. Navnløs 22:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks on User talk:199.216.98.82

Thanks for your edits to our Wikipedia. However, please assume the good faith of other editors and do not make personal attacks in edit summaries. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Nn123645 19:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Odin is my lord and master

That's interesting.

I think I get why you say that about metal-archives.com. But I'll probably still get one soon, since I want to add Porcupine Tree there. And I could add my own band, if only the band members would get around to practice and get a demo. Backtable 01:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there probably is a reason why Porcupine Tree won't be accepted. It probably is because ov their earlier material, but their present material is (at least I consider it) progressive metal. They do have an account on metalstorm.ee. BT^C 1:10 1 November 2007 UTC

Line Breaks

I agree with you, they rule and commas blow.--E tac 23:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:Thanks

No problem. However, you might want to stop calling people "idiots" (even if it was a vandal) seeing as you've been warned for personal attacks before. Funeral 23:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand, but when you attack a vandal it just makes you look as bad as them. I've done it before too. Funeral 23:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

re:curious

Hey, as far as possessed's seven churches is concerned, its more like proto death, the vocals are understandable, even if they are harsh. They are not definitely 'Cookie Monster' vocals. Anyway, if you feel otherwise, remove possessed from the list. Weltanschaunng 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

FAC and editing whilst nomination is ongoing

Please do not edit the Motorhead article to your preferred version at the moment regarding commas and line breaks, it's a really minor issue, the article will be put into the Featured Article process shortly, any edit warring risks it being speedily rejected from the process. That would be a high price to pay for a small issue. Please be patient for others editors to engage in the ongoing discussion, regardless of your views, please try to focus your edits elsewhere while this happens, it will have the added benefit of reflecting better on your argument. Thanks--Alf ^melmac 10:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Btw, one piece of advice: "Don't give a fuck" - Seriously. Just don't. It's only an encyclopaedia :-D - Find humour in what's going on... People are arguing over minute pieces of punctuation... Does that not seem funny? Unfortunately, it happens. Just keep it cool and "don't give a fuck". You'll be fine. Scarian ^Talk 17:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[1] - It was commas long before you started on Iron Maiden. I understand that it wasn't meant to be offensive and it's good that you mentioned that. The above edit summary shows that it was always commas and not line breaks. So it shall remain commas until the consensus is reached because that's the norm with these type of things [To prevent edit warring mostly]. I hope you don't take offense to it. I hope your campaign for the advocation of line breaks turns out the way you want it to, friend. Scarian ^Talk 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Iron Maiden. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Peter Fleet 23:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In addition to your warning, I would like to point out the following:

[2], [3] - Just because there is no consensus does not mean that you get to put it your own way. The Motorhead article has always had commas - long before you created your account. And on the latter example, I consulted an admin whom took random edit histories from the article and agree'd with me that the IM article has always, generally, used commas.

[4] - It is considered unhelpful if you have "suggestive" edit summaries such as that. State what you are doing clearly and concisely. Also, any edit that other contributor's could disagree with should not be struck as a "minor" edit.

[5] - That's pure unverifiable speculation and thus not a valid reason. It's your opinion, and, as you know, Wikipedia has no place for opinions. Hope this clears things up. Scarian ^Talk 23:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Iron Maiden. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

TigerShark 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey, again. sorry about...

...not being on as late, too much work to do and gigs to do etc...anyway about the bands, I try to be on tonight and I go through some band pages I want etc. And we can do them alternatly. for example: I can get the information of the band whilst you write or vis versa.

Hope thats okay. Thanks for commenting back, sorry I am late replying. METALFREAK04 12:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Possesedlineup photo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Possesedlineup photo.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

reply to your question

Read WP:FAIR and WP:NONFREE. A image tagged as a screenshot is only fair-use if it's used in the in the Wikipedia article about the source of the screenshot. Similarly, and album cover cannot be used in any articles other than the article about the specific album that the covver is from. Also, both screenshots and covers need to have Fair-use rationale included in their descriptions in order to stay on Wikipedia. If they don't they are likely top be deleted. Hope that helps.

BTW, no concensus has been reached at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Delimiting_marks_in_Musical_artist_infobox. Until a concensus is reached you should hold back on your spacing agenda. It has already been noted by several admins who were not impressed by your plans. 156.34.142.110 19:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots are used incorrectly all over Wikipedia... not just in music articles. If you see a screenshot... or an album cover that is in violation of WP:FAIR... and there are many... feel free to delete them and quote WP:FAIR in your edit summary as the reason for doing so. These types of "policy abiding" edits are most welcomed on Wikipedia. There just aren't enough editors to try and help out when it comes to things like fair-use for images. Images that are look like they are copyright vioaltions can be tagged as a PUI (see WP:PUI ) Every little bit counts. Wiki is overflowing with copyvio text and images that need to be removed if the project is to succeed in any way. As always, if you need any help finding Wikipedia Policies, don't hesitate to ask. And good luck image-vio hunting. 156.34.142.110 19:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Logos are as touchy a subject as breaks vs. commas. If they are sourced properly and have fiar-use rationale then... they might pass. But concensus seems to be that they are very unencyclopedic. Always remember... this is an encyclopedia (or tries to be) and it is over-populated with editors who are trying to lower the quality and class of the project by making it look like a junior high school book report. Encyclopedias don't have flash and colour and flowery poetic adjectives. They are dry and lifeless and boring strings of text... referenced text. So no matter how hard you work on getting those logos in.... in the end they may up being turfed anyways. I have no real opinion on them. I don't mind the plain grey background with the plain black text logos. But the big overpowering colour logos look really bad.(and those are the ones that usually get deleted first). 156.34.142.110 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS, your Possessed image still can't be used in the infobox. It doesn't have a proper fair-use rationale box... and even if it did... it would still only be fair-use in the article which pertains to the source of the screenshot itself. 156.34.142.110 19:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PPS re: Logos. The logo in the Anthrax article isn't too bad... except it's WAY too big. The logo in the Morbid Angel article however... looks really bad, very unencyclopedic, and should be swapped for something a little less juvenile. 156.34.142.110 19:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PPPS... and Morbid Saint is even worse than the other one... VERY unencyclopedic. 156.34.142.110 19:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Screenshots continued... In order for a screenshot to be fair-use it has to be in the article specific to the screenshot. What that means is... If you upload a properly sourced, properly fair-use screenshot from an Iron Maiden video.... the ONLY article that it can be used in is the article about the video (if there is one) and no where else. Even if the main Iron Maiden article has a paragraph in it about the video. Example... In 1988 Iron Maiden filmed a video for Can I Play With Madness in which the band only appeared in video flashback form and starred Graham Chapman, of Monty Python fame. you cannot use a screenshot from the video in the main article even though the main article contain text specific to the video itself.... the screenshot can only be used if there is an article specifically about the Can I Play With Madness video. Make sense? I can't explain it any simpler than that. A screenshot from a movie cannot be used in an article about an actor who starred in the movie... it can only be used in an article about the movie itself. Thats the only way it meets WP:FAIR. It's a strict policy and hard to get a grip on... but over time it will all seem more clear as you gain more edit experience. 156.34.142.110 19:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You might think you like those logos now.... but as you begin to grasp the "encyclopedia" vs "12 year old book report" scenario... you will begin to see what looks good and what doesn't. Every time you click the edit button the bottom of your edit screen requests "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable". Two key words there... encyclopedic and verifiable. Two years ago... I may not have noticed ugly and unencyclopedic logos at all... but now they just jump out when the page loads and I wonder what some 10 year old was thinking when they stuck them in there? I've been here as long as there's been a project to be here for. I have done well over 50000 edits here. I think I had this same conversation with an editor a year ago. Perhaps we will have this same conversation 2 years from now... who knows? Wiki wasn't built in a day. But it has a long way to go before it will ever achieve the lofty "pedia" title it's editors are working so hard for. Wiki's weakest link is its music articles. They are magnets for vandals, soapboxers, pov pushers and some of the worst editors in the entire project. But it has many dedicated editors too. In the end lets hope they win out and all the trolls give up and go back under their bridges. 156.34.142.110 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

UH WHAT THE HELL!?

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).

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

Request reason:

Why am I being blocked? I DID NOT break the 3 revert rule on Iron Maiden, are you serious? I reverted it twice because some people would not stop senselessly changing it. I believe the three revert rule mean you have to revert something three times! Navnløs 00:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

despite being reverted repeatedly by other users, you insisted on your version of the article being retained. The issue is petty, but you should propose the matter on the talk page especially when several people have already reverted your change. — Carlossuarez46 03:37, 6 November 2007 (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.

No you do not need to revert three times, please read WP:3RR, and specifically:

The motivation for the three-revert rule is to prevent edit warring. In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique. Rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have made three or fewer reverts in a 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. Efforts to game the system, for example by persistently making three reverts each day or three reverts on each of a group of pages, cast an editor in a poor light and may result in blocks. Many administrators give less leniency to users who have been blocked before, and may block such users for any disruptive edit warring regardless of whether they have explicitly violated the three-revert rule. Similarly, editors who may have technically violated the 3RR may not be blocked, depending on circumstances.

In your case you have been previously warned and seem well aware of the policy but continue to edit war over a trivial issue that cannot warrant such disruption. TigerShark 00:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't get the fact that I'm the one being blocked here. Why is it that I'm the one being disruptive! I feel that others editing the Iron Maiden page were not only making senseless edits, but edits that did not help anything and I changed them back to the way they were! As far as I'm concerned they (such as User:Scarian) are the ones engaging in an edit war and being disruptive! They are the ones that continually keep reverting the page. We're both climbing the "electric fence," why am I the one being zapped? 165.196.83.17 00:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I did review the contributions of other editors, including the one mentioned by you. Although they have been involved they do not seem to have individually been involved as much as you. I will be happy to look at this further if you wish. However, regardless of whether others are eventually blocked, the issue that needs to be addressed here is your violation of 3RR. TigerShark 00:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think that would be a really good idea. When you come back, I hope that you can work out the issue with the other editors but, if you still have problems, please feel free to contact me. Cheers TigerShark 00:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

reply re: music question

I Have been an aquaintance(and therefore a fan... obviously) of Anthrax since their Fistful of Metal days. I used to see them around a lot back in their early days... but in the last 20 years I have only crossed paths with them a few times. I met up with them a couple of times on their Euphoria tour. And I went backstage a few years ago at a show they did in Toronto with Pantera... a quick chat with Charlie... a LONG talk with Dimebag... and then I left. They have come close to home a few times since but I haven't had time to go. I was interested in seeing a reunion show... even though I didn't think that whole "reunion" thing was a good idea. I think Bush is great vocalist and that cutting him loose after all the good music they had made throught the 90s/00s was stupid. I am not a huge death metal fan but I do like the original Florida scene and I don't mind Morbid Angel. I am not familiar with Morbid Saint at all. I have over 5000 albums in my music collection. I have everything from the most extreme death metal to classical to jazz to big band swing to bluegrass to whatever. I pick stuff at random everyday to listen to. With that much music to choose from I don't get around to death metal too much. I gave the new Entombed album a few listens. I liked the last Nile album and the last Obituary album. But it's only on rare occasion that I grab something like that. I am just as apt to be listening to Miles Davis or Hank Williams Sr. or Mahavishnu Orchestra or Motorhead or Pink Floyd or Rossini or Slayer... etc etc etc. Being stuck in one style of music more than 2 days in a row makes a person numb. Tonight I feel like hearing some of the greatest guitar playing that's ever been recorded.... so... of course... I will be listening to the Allman Brothers. Being a music buff and being a librarian at the same time means I have hundreds of thousands of pieces of music at my fingertips. And I try to listen to all of it. 156.34.223.225 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You have to be more careful

Your rv of Iron Maiden re-added edits from a banned user. They also re-rm'd several citations and re-added a few WP:ENGVAR vios. Read Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive6#Community_ban_on_User:SEGA if you ant to learn how NOT to edit Wikipedia. This guy is banned for life... and... even his rare "good" edits are to be rv'd at will in the spirit of Dont' feed the trolls. If he thinks he can get away with it... he will just continue. If he is rv'd at every turn... something which usually happens... he gets bored and goes away for awhile. Hope that helps. 156.34.142.110 19:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I am calling off the dogs. The Iron Maiden editor has made a plea for his case. I have warned him that his habits (deleting {unreferenced} tags, stockpiling covers, ignoring a few other "fine details" of Wiki-policy have been mirroring the edit habits of the banned user. He has temporarily won my AGF. That being said, the users previous account was in breach of a few other key policies like 3RR and was also trying to linkspam Wikipedia. I believe his previous account was on the VandalProof blacklist. Which doesn't happen to just anyone. If you see his edits... they may be OK (like I said before... some of his Iron Maiden edits were OK... some certainly were not) so just take the time to double check them if you can to see that no rules have been shaded. 156.34.142.110 20:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

HAHA!!! Forget I said that.. the user slipped up and revealed their true identity. 156.34.142.110 20:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

He was/is permanently banned User:SEGA. Read his user page. He is banned for uploading "copyright violation" images using dozens of accounts. Artist pictures, album covers, screenshots, logos... the whole works. He just kept stealing them... just kept adding them in... ignoring every warning he was ever issued. He was also guilty of violating WP:OWN, WP:DICK, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA... just to name a few. 156.34.142.110 18:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ummm???? Just a quick note re: your last edit. User:The Elfoid doesn't vandalise Wikipedia. I do not agree with some of the content that he adds. But he is a very busy editor on music related articles. Try checking the talk pages for before jumping in and calling an edit vandalism. He may have had a reason for what he did?? It may have been a mistake?? Try reading WP:AGF. You don't have to AGF for SEGA. But for young editors like The Elfoid it sometimes helps. 156.34.142.110 18:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring on Cradle of Filth

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Funeral 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wtf, dude. I am not engaged in an edit war. I was talking about the CoF article with some people and they noted one line needed a citation and I accidently added one that wasn't correct anymore. I'm not edit warring. User:The Haunted Angel, the one who was removing my edits even said I could use the same edit if I found a correct citation this time. Navnløs 23:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Navnlos, please realise that continously reverting peoples' edits is considered edit warring. You did it on the linebreaks/commas issue again tonight. I don't get it. Why can't you just edit something different? Why can't you just cool down and take a deep breath and do something else on Wikipedia? There is no need for you to constantly do this whole personal agenda where you hate commas, okay? There is no need. And, please, discuss rather constantly revert or else someone will come along and you will be blocked again... If you need any help please don't hesitate to contact me. Scarian ^Talk 23:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I always dicuss my changes on talk pages. Navnløs 23:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

No, no... I mean discussing before any reversions. Formula: Discuss+WP:CIVIL = Result that will suit Wikipedia. Discussion does not mean: Revert + Witty edit summary = Happy other Wikipedians. It pisses a lot of people off. Just ask questions and get peoples' views before being so hasty with the revert button. Scarian ^Talk 00:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you call this and this? I linked CoF in the thread title because it was the main article you were edit warring on today (you were one edit away from breaking the 3RR), but the other edits to the AC/DC, Deep Purple, etc. articles are still pointless edit warring. Funeral 00:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the links

You have, on several occasions, carried on very civil conversations with me. And I have tried to, whenever possible, link you to most of Wikipedia's key policies and guideines. Take the time to read them... and if you have any questions don't hesitate to ask me. I am willing to assist. I have close to 50000 edits here both as an anon and as a former "logged-in" user. So I have just about seen it all. It would not be good if you receive another 3RR block, Your first was short. A second one will be double-time. And if the blocking admin has a bit of a meanstreak... and many do... he could block you for an extended period... if he/she so desired. I can get just about any user I want blocked simply by asking an admin directly to do so (showing just cause and history). But I cannot get anyone unblocked. Block logs stick with you. And they work against you whenever you are trying to win any consensus here. So read the policies. Read the guidelines. Read the talk pages. And avoid that 3RR gavel. 156.34.227.140 00:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Uh

Yeah, I've been following the discussion. The point you're still missing is that it's no more notable than any other genre idea. It fits in the list with the rest of them - it doesn't belong on its own. But take it to the others if you disagree. Cardinal Wurzel 19:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Take it to the talk page. I'm not arguing. Cardinal Wurzel 19:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Cradle of Filth

Hi! All I can say is, that article has had well-meaning people pop up and change the genre to gothic metal, or symphonic black metal, or dark metal, or whatever, literally for YEARS. So some of the folks arguing with you understandably have little patience with the whole thing. My advice is: try to stay cool, and we can sort out something that everyone will think is reasonable. --Stormie 00:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Please Note

Thanks for telling me that about the links. I remember editing some files and thinking to myself that some ov these edits were useless.

I know this is changing the subject, but I saw your wikipedia profile and found two ov the boxes interesting:

First off, the fact that you're a pagan. I enjoy studying paganism (more specifically Norse Mythology and Egyptian Mythology). I'd like to ask what kind ov deities you worship.

Second off, the fact that you have an Encyclopaedia Metallum account. I really want an account at that website, but I can't think ov a name for myself there. Even if I had a name, I'd probably wait to get the account, since Morrigan posted something about the people who want to sign up have recently not received their e-mail notifications.

BT^C 15:39 31 October 2007 UTC —Preceding comment was added at 15:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Funny thing because I haven't either. I tried twice and still received no email. --CircafuciX 18:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"October 31st, 2007

E-mails fixed (posted at 02:38)

The e-mail problems should be fixed now. Sorry about the trouble."
http://www.metal-archives.com/news.php?months=10-2007 Kameejl ^(Talk) 18:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for showing me the news, although I'm having a second thought now on registering there but if the opportunity persists can I add a band or post in forum anonymously? and sry if I'm sidetracking here. --CircafuciX 19:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The point I was trying to make was I'm probably not going to be adding bands all the time but any chance I get when I find one out thats not in the database. Should I still register for that reason? or not? --CircafuciX 17:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A little tip about reporting vandalism

Don't report vandals at WP:ANI. Vandalism gets reported at WP:AIV. Hope that helps. 156.34.142.110 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It'll get taken care of a lot faster when its reported in the right place. 156.34.142.110 18:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

BTW. Wikipedia Administrator Wiki alf has asked for mediation, discussion and decision over at the Wikipedia Manual of Style discussion page. You will notice that since he has done this, all regular editors have waited for input on that page as per WP:CON and WP:AGF. You personal agenda... and the fact that you have posted it in BOLD letters on your userpage would lead regular editors to belive that you will not follow whatever consensus guideline comes from that discussion. Administrators Wiki alf and Bubba Hotep are both working hard to push the Motorhead article to Featured Article status. The last thing those two Admins want to see is a rogue editor stepping in and undoing their hard work. You should cool your heels on your POV war until the proper protocol has taken place and a decision made. Admin Wiki alf like to preach the philosophy... "If it's not broke, then don't try to fix it". Should you rile his interest into your own little POV push ahead of any proper discussion and decision... you will likely find yourself blocked from editing until you learn how things work around here. Just thought you'd like to know. Good luck with vandal hunting. Still waiting for you to delete the POV cruft and junk from the Thrash metal page. Perhaps you should expel your energy over there on that article since right now... you've left it in a bad state. 156.34.228.22 23:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

If a consensus is made on comma breaks vs. line breaks, I will follow it. Hell I'll champion it and change eversy single page I can find to the correct format, but until then I will do as is fit for wikipedia, even if a few others disagree. I don't feel like changing the thrash page, too much energy. Navnløs 23:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I've requested for an administrator to review your recent edit history, your shading of policy and your bold announcement of personal agenda on Wikipedia. Perhaps he can assist you in your attempts to learn how Wikipedia works. 156.34.236.51 23:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)