User talk:Burningclean

edit count | edit summary usage

Welcome to Burningclean's talk page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks	Archives 1–2–3 4–5–6 7–8–9 10–11 12–13

Trivium

Cool, count me in. For the record, I hate them too! I've just gotta finish this essay, then I'll join you. J Milburn (talk) 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in the mood right now, sorry. I will look into it tomorrow, maybe. Got a fair deal of committment to WP:D&D at the moment, and I am generally rather busy with college and stuff. I'll certainly be free over Easter, but, knowing you, it'll probably be featured by then! I will try and find time to do some work on it, but I suspect I won't be a major player. J Milburn (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, completely forgot about this. I think I'll probably give it a miss, sorry. Don't want to research it, and I dunno if I'll be in the mood for writing it much either. J Milburn (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth

Yeah, it's fine. However, I will be busy for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Irreplaceable and I'll be out for days to observe Holy Week. I commented there about the references and I'll try to go over the article once I can have free time from today to Thursday. Is it ok?--Efe (talk) 00:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone already polished the article. Thanks for the support in "Irreplaceable"'s FAC and good luck for Opeth. =) --Efe (talk) 11:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Wasn't expecting it to be promoted so soon. Thanks for the star. Now to get some more FAs, good to see Opeth is doing well. M3tal H3ad (talk) 01:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

As a nominator, you may want to vote before voting ends as soon as I get to it after the end of the day on the 20th.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenacious D discography

Many thanks for the recommendations. I took care of them. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's great with the dating system. I didn't realise that the date gets automatically cut up. Thanks. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 14:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

Happy First Day of Spring!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~

If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}!
To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Yeah dude, enjoy it! I have!!! And thanks for refering me to Mr. Zorn... I'll let you know if he's any help with the music sample thing! Dark Executioner (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rush (band)

Backing you to the hilt. :) indopug (talk) 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ha! yeah I'll write a review for Opeth tonight. As for your "silly question", I'm kinda lazy so I can't pick myself up to do the necessary research most of the time. I must say though, I think an FAR is pretty much inevitable for the article, 'cause the work thats required is not minor. :( indopug (talk) 05:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at this, its pretty far along and should be FA easy. indopug (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, non-free images used for the identification of alive people are unacceptable on Wikipedia, I removed those two pictures from Opeth and the bandmembers' articles. As for Flickr images, most of them do not fulfill criteria to be uploaded on Commons/Wikipedia; you need to click on the license on the right and see that there is a green seal: approved for free cultural works on the license. (For eg: The two images you linked to on the SYL peer review didn't fulfill the criteria.) You might want to ask the uploader to change it. indopug (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats BTW, I swear I was gonna support but it was too late :) indopug (talk) 05:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see this? indopug (talk) 14:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Darren Middleton

Wheeeee! dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treehouse of Horror V

Moved feedback to Peer review please reply there. Buc (talk) 12:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the correct Peer review. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opeth

hey thanks, I finaly figured our Flickr and there ins't much for Opeth that has the usable copyright stuff, but these 2 defenetly help. Hopefully this thing is close to passing, another support from Laserbrain! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome man, thats another one under the belt! And I think it's funny that both times we've had these huuuge FAC's, Indopug never supported either in the long run... after all of that. Seems that his "perfect article" isn't very realistic... oh well, the article is much better than when it started. I think Black Sabbath is still gonna take me a while, I still have to write a Legacy section and a Musical style section - both are gonna be hard, still digging up sources for those, as they are so influental. Its somthing I am working on over a longer time frame, because the article is so huge now, its gona take a looong ass time. But there are tons of other things to work on, I am not just limiting myself to Sabbath. I know you are the FA list king - have you ever had a look at Megadeth discography - it needs a bit of work, but it would be cool to get featured. Im not too up on the FL's, but it has album sales and stuff that have no cites. Most of the bands that I really wanna write about don't have much info to use for sources, but after Sabbath I do wanna tackle Iron Maiden, Dream Theater, Judas Priest, and stuff with the Wiki Project View Askew, dealing withthe works of Kevin Smith (Im a big fan) possibly even trying to get Kevin Smith up to FA. What happened with United Abominations? did you finish that one? Let me know if there is somthing you wana work on - even if its not what I am into, Im still down to help for the cause! \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six Feet Under is lookin' good!

Hey, I just went through the article with a fine-toothed comb and removed anything that I saw that could be misinterpreted as POV. Will you read the article again, and notify me if there is still anything that sticks out? This thing is getting closer to GA... Dark Executioner (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAC notes

I've just promoted Opeth; congratulations. Now that it's been promoted, I'd like to respond to your old query about restarting. I don't restart noms solely because the nominator and reviewers have gotten into long, off-topic debates and arguments; I restart a nom when I can't tell if valid opposes have been resolved or if the status wrt WP:WIAFA is unclear. Since this is now the second lengthy FAC you've had (Alice in Chains), I have two suggestions: 1) don't argue with reviewers (it will only prolong the FAC), and 2) consider the information here about how to take better advantage of peer review, so that your articles will be better prepared for FAC. In both cases, I noted that reviewers mentioned that issues remained unresolved after peer review, that the articles came to FAC unprepared, and that causes a FAC backlog. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully next time will go smoother if you get all the arguments out in peer review :-) Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:LOTD

Congratulations! Godsmack discography was selected as a List of the Day for April. Let me know if you have a strong preference for a date.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

What did I do that wasn't correct per MOS? WP:DATE says that a hard space should be used in between a number and a word (e.g., 18 years of age), WP:DASH says that en dashes should be used for ranges of years, hyphens should be used between mid and a year in general practice, and I thought that using "signed to" rather than "signed on to" eliminated some redundancy. Could you explain? --Kakofonous (talk) 01:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A hard space ( ) is a little piece of code that causes the series of characters it is positioned between to stay together when there is a new line, rather than breaking apart. For some reason WP:DATE is very particular about using them instead of a regular space, as it's apparently useful to use them for units. One thing I wish they would standardize (or maybe they have?) is the use of – versus a regular Unicode dash. Thanks for the explanation anyway :) --Kakofonous (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks

Thank you for cleaning up my Korn: Live in Montreux 2004 atricle. Thats my first article (Unless you count my Dear Future article which got deleted cause apparently they arent significant :-/ )

Once again much thanks and i'd like to keep in touch for further help possibly another time --Kornography (talk) 01:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trivium

Is not ready for GA. I just fixed about four spelling errors, one review for Ascendancy? "Trivium are a " again the problem with singular and plural, was re-released in 2006 with bonus tracks - how many bonus tracks? "vocals changed from a metalcore scream that was heard on Ascendancy, to more singing on this album" is poorly written. I don't understand what the rush is to nominate it. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the article is really short and lacks comparisons to Metallica for The Crusade section. M3tal H3ad (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related note- try to keep an eye on the genres, I just reverted an edit. Everyone seems to believe that Trivium should be whatever genre they want them to be, we've had some pretty ridiculous examples... J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By using the undo feature. J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opeth logo

Care to provide an actual rationale for this edit? The image has been reduced to a low resolution, as per the respective concerns raised in the article's FA review and with that having been addressed, I fail to see how an artwork that has been closely and consistently associated with a group for several years, much like the logo of a company, fails to merit inclusion. In regard to your edit summary: Judging from your user page, you seem experienced enough around Wikipedia and the web to be aware of both, WP:OWN and the significance of all-caps in connection with WP:CIVIL, but I'm going to assume good faith if you will. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 21:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logo was explicitly asked not to be in the article in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Opeth. I don't own the article, however, if somebody needs help with a certain edit, they should probably come to me because I rewrote the article and am the FAC nominator. Please look at the discussion on the FAC page. The logo should not be there. Burningclean _[speak] 21:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did and my argument still stands. The image was converted from vectors to pixels to ensure that it could not be used for unsolicited high-quality reproduction, which cannot be done with a mere 500×406 px image, given that desktop and print resolutions differ greatly. Besides, further downscaling and re-uploading an image if deemed necessary isn't exactly brain surgery. The inclusion of the logo has also been discussed earlier on the article's talk page though this was apparently given no attention during the (now closed) FA review. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 22:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be there. The "closed" FAC discussion wasn't a failure, therefor all comments must stay and be aplied, otherwise it could be demoted. Even though it is so simple, if that discussion had one oppose still standing, it would not have been promoted. Burningclean _[speak] 22:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but "just because" is not a compelling argument. I will opt for reinserting the logo based on the rationale I provided above and as both of us can point to a previous consensus in their favor, we are probably better off discussing this issue from scratch at Talk:Opeth. Note that I do appreciate this article reaching FA status, as well as your efforts to get it there, but neither does that make the page an unchanging monument, nor the people involved in the promotion process right by default. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 22:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the discussion at the FAC page, the logo isn't needed there. Although I personally do think that logos should be in Wikipedia articles, it seems the consensus is that they shouldn't. See any other music FA's with logos? I don't see them anymore. Taking out the logo was part of the FA process, and as it just passed, I'm not sure its right to stick it right back in after the FAC closes... Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank, I have little regard for a supposed consensus that promotes a double-standard. Excluding long-time logos of one particular type of organization (i.e. bands) but keeping them in others (companies, brands, etc.) is quite at odds with our basic principle of neutrality. And no one in their right mind is going to challenge the article's FA status because it includes a piece of imagery that has been closely associated with the article's subject for several years. Having a more detailed, referenced discussion of such an image is always nice, but per WP:LOGOS, reasonable familiarity suffices to warrant inclusion. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 16:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Megadeth

Hey, man, sounds like a cool idea, I'd be down, Im not sure that it would be a very big project,(member wise) but there sure are a lot of articles that can be improved - all the bandmembers, albums, ect. Nice work with the Megadeth discog, I am not too up on those, but from the looks of other ones, it just needs a brief overview/history? I can try and put somthing together for that. I'm just a few sections away from finishing my first draft of the Sabbath history section, so I am gonna be knee deep in that for a bit, but anything else you wanna colabarate on, or if you need prose reworked or whatever, let me know - \m/ Skeletor2112 (talk) 04:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WikiProjectBannerShell

Regarding your !vote at the WikiProjectBanners tfd, all banners in Category:WikiProject banners do have the nested functionality. And the default template new ones are created from also has it. Just FYI :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]