User talk:M3tal H3ad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than (7) days are automatically archived to User talk:M3tal H3ad/Archive2. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Contents 1 Re: Slayer discography 1.1 More feedback 2 Angel of Death 3 Big Four 4 An Automated Message from HagermanBot 5 OTT GA review 6 Feeder (band) GA review feedback 7 Your reversion re: Galactic tide 8 Angel of Death is FA.. 9 Wikipedia:Peer review/Domenico Selvo 10 Domenico Selvo FAC

[edit] Re: Slayer discography

Yeah it was me. A lot of work needs doing, though I think I could come up with a cool way of it becoming one. I'm busy at present, but when I get home tomorrow I'll tell you how I envision it being laid out. LuciferMorgan 20:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Here's the deal. You're gonna have to change it to something like KLF Communications first. Pay attention to fair use, which cropped up when that article was FL'd unsuccessfully. Then;

• I'd suggest carting the singles, compilation appearances etc. off into their own article.

• Split the album discography into appropriate sections. Perhaps one for the Metal Blade years, one for RIN up to Seasons, one for the sans Lombardo years, and then one for Lombardo's return.

• Annotate each of these sections so that it tells the reader about how they signed to each record label etc. Also about chart positions, album awards, and RIAA discs.

• Writing an intro to summarise the article.

Get back to me if further clarification is needed. LuciferMorgan 12:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Remember to add any info about label / distributor changes etc. Get rid of all the columns and follow the format used by KLF Communications. All the info in the columns make into stubby sentences.

2. As concerns when you list each album, follow the example set by [[KLF Communications. Make sure to have track listing etc. Pay attention to fair use with the album covers.

3. Yeah cart the rest off elsewhere - there's no info on the singles so really it'd be hard going if they were there also. LuciferMorgan 02:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More feedback

Chart position it says? Which chart though? Fill these in as follows; "5 (US), 20 (UK), etc. etc."

Fill in the ones without their disc certification (change that to RIAA certification for clarity).

Citate every chart position and every RIAA certification.

Write an intro for the Metal Blade section about how they signed to the label etc, and citate every sentence if possible

Same for Def Jam, and explain also why they left Blade.

Same for American Recordings, and explain why they left Def Jam (check SOH article). See if you can find out more info about Rubin changing distributors every five minutes for this one.

Generally make astute comments, backed with citation. For example, RIB was the first to hit the Billboard top 100, or that SOH was the last Def Jam album etc. LuciferMorgan 10:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Every section after and including "Live albums" needs an introductory section. LuciferMorgan 11:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Create a new section for the info you removed (singles, comps) etc. or someone will say the list isn't comprehensive.

If anyone objects about the images inclusion, quote criterion 3 of FL to them. You might be better off reading WP:FU#Images and making heads or tails of it - give Kingboyk a bell as he knows a bit about this area due to his old FL nomination of KLF Communications. LuciferMorgan 11:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel of Death

Hey, I will help out on this, have read it and its quite good; will make some tweaks in a few days. Good work though...Ceoil 21:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

When are you thinking of FAing this one? Just curious... you'll have to check Wikipedia:Music samples though as the one used is slightly too long as I explained at PR. I'm keen to know when you intend taking this one to FAc though.. :) LuciferMorgan 18:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The song's live appearance on an Ozzfest album you haven't added yet, despite me mentioning it at FAC. LuciferMorgan 04:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I'm still waiting for one of the GA reviewers to take a look at the current Slayer related GACs. Feels like the page has stalled a bit. LuciferMorgan 10:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, it's well appreciated. SOH is shaping up well, though it's been hard going finding info on the lyrical themes - all I've found is two sentences. LuciferMorgan 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You could GA review "For Tomorrow" - it's bit of an obvious fail as you'll see. LuciferMorgan 11:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Big Four

The Slayer Wikiproject's been accredited with the death of the Big Four Project if you look - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Big Four of Thrash Metal. Apparently they're going to change it to a Thrash Metal Wikiproject. That's likely to be a cock up a la the Metal Project but on a smaller scale. To be honest, while that project was alive I didn't even see the creator do anything to improve any articles whatsoever. All will happen is a few signatures and they'll sit on their ass, and then claim credit for other people's GAs and FAs - I hate Projects like that (that's why I'm trying to change the Metal Project a little, but without success thus far). LuciferMorgan 22:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Try and encourage him to work as a subproject of HMM or not set up a project at all. It'll be a tag the talk pages and forget about it exercise, mark my words, so anything to reduce the impact would be good. --kingboyk 11:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 12:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm a fan of this bot. LuciferMorgan 05:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OTT GA review

Man, You've had me defending a failure of one of your Slayer articles to a perniticky reviewer, and now you've come and given the OTT approach to one of WPBeatles' articles - Brian Epstein!

• The Beatles went on to have massive international success. Although its a lead such a bold claim needs a reference - Citations rarely go in the lead, and not for a statement as safe as that. Everybody knows The Beatles had extraordinarily massive success, including even those people who think they are crap.
• please add WP:PDATA at the bottom of the article - Since when has that been needed for GA?
• and later controlled the Epstein family's music outlets, which became highly successful. POV statement - Not so much POV as needing a source.

They applied for GA - "good" article - not FA! --kingboyk 11:43, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I prefer GA reviewers who help to improve the article - GA depends on one's intepretation. Least it improves the article. LuciferMorgan 12:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feeder (band) GA review feedback

Hi!, thank you for your review regarding this article!. I have deleted sentences I am unable to citate due to a lack of information on the internet, and so have used sentences that I am able to, and have also followed each point you listed and ammended the article to meet each of these :-).

The images that have not been verified correctly, I have taken away from the article, I do not know where the original uploader got them from as I just copied and pasted them from the articles for the albums themselves plus the "Two Colours EP".

If it is in the criteria that a good article has a good use of images, I will re-add these and try to get a correct verification for these.

Am looking forward to your next useful dose of feedback and advice on the newly edited article!!!.

Cheers!. Marcus Bowen 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again!. I have ammended the sentence regarding the reviews, and used italics for the quotes. However, I do not quite understand what you mean by "Solo years".

Marcus Bowen 14:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your reversion re: Galactic tide

As far as I'm aware, the Galactic tide article has never been officially rated as B-Class. Before I submitted it for GA consideration, it had not received any rating whatsoever from the Astronomy wikiproject. Eventually someone listed it as a good article; no review or reason was given. Subsequently, an anonymous user delisted its Good Article status, and listed it as B-Class, again with no review or rationale given. Because of that user's anonymous status, I took the de-listing as vandalism and reverted it. Someone at the astronomy wikiproject then rated it GA class in line with the top. It seems that this article has been repeatedly rated without much forethought. If there is going to be a rating for this article, whatever the outcome, I would like to know that it was the result of a considered review. Serendipodous 10:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel of Death is FA..

Congratulations, and don't forget to put the star on it. I'm gonna add a new section on "Eyes", wait for GAC, and then try FAC. LuciferMorgan 00:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Lombardo is probably a good candidate for next FA. While you work on that, I'm gonna see if I can find time to get SOH to GA and "Eyes" to FA (if GAC hurries the Hell help). A pic would be handy for Lombardo, and one thing which needs addressing; the body of the article doesn't deal with his one off albums with Voodoocult and Testament etc. That'll need addressing. LuciferMorgan 08:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it? Nobody told me :( (except you). LuciferMorgan 08:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

ShadowHalo. I knew he was gonna f'in review it :( I'm sure it's due to the Stefani debacle. LuciferMorgan 08:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the comments he made were rubbish to be honest, especially the bit about "Grammy winning" being POV - it's a fact that it won the gong, not some opinionated BS. Additionally, his comments about a "Music and structure" section are rather naff too - Slayer has made no comments on the structure, and if I used the BS crap of reviewers it'd kill off the "Critical reception" section. Do you know what the band's last single was before "Eyes"? I'd say "Eternal Pyre". LuciferMorgan 08:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to congratulate you on your second FA. Congratulations! You guys are fast catching up with the KLF...Ceoil 22:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Peer review/Domenico Selvo

A few months ago, you helped me out in getting this article started. Now I think it is close to ready for FA nomination. If you could help me out in this peer review before I go to FAC, I would be eternally grateful. Thank you very much, JHMM13 09:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful review!! I'm am truly grateful :-D. I've responded to your suggestions and I hope you find everything to your liking. I've also commented on some of your suggestions...I'm eagerly anticipating your reply :-). JHMM13 21:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Domenico Selvo FAC

Hey, M3tal H3ad. I just want to let you know that, thanks in part to your help during the peer review, I have nominated this article for FA status. I hope you have a chance to check it out and I will continue carefully addressing any concern you might have. Thanks again, JHMM13 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)