User talk:CircafuciX/My Comments
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All comments are by me.
[edit] My comments
Is this guy serious? asking that what he wrote is or isn't vandalism??? See this link and have a laugh: [1]
I really (emphasis on "really") don't understand... Chinese lucky strike has been removing the 10 star rating template on several articles (mostly Opeth's albums). I see absolutely (emphasis on "absolutely") no reason to remove them when they are already there in the first place... leave it alone... I don't understand... I feel like putting them back, they look a lot nicer than (5/5)... and it is accepted for use in pro reviews. Although theres a catch, you can only use them if they are rated using stars which has to the be the reason, otherwise I will change it back.
For some reason, I've been thinking that "certain users" are following my contributions and have been placing notability and deletion tags or correcting and "correcting" my edits for the sake of their own pleasure or maybe I'm being too critical on that... if I am then I am sorry.
I really would like a picture of myself here... and maybe go on a picture-taking spree of whatever I like to maybe include in Wikipedia.
There should be a comment maker that you can get to from the top part of the article (not discussion has no topics) and it will contain comments by the general public or very small comments made by Wikipedians just like in Guestbooks. The comments would mostly be a quick suggestion of the editor's edit summary or wrongdoing.
I been thinking of adding myself to certain projects (like redirect, categories, format project if there is) but they will be limited to mostly or entirely music related articles. Or my tasks will mostly go into adding infoboxes to bands I come up to, improving its style, and fighting against deletion and notability to make sure bands stay on Wikipedia.
I also notice the: "according to wikipedia" but according to me I prefer <br /> and I see listing with a , as a lazy way to format and it looks horrid to me, while <br /> makes it much cleaner to view. If I were an Wikipedia official on the project I would change some things. People take the guideline styles too seriously and it seems to me that the most popular bands that are being edited have that format while other editors use the <br /> format instead. People that have made articles in their own specific style and format are for granted of what real harm they are doing. "The code is more of an actual guideline than a rule" and were meant to be broken :Caribbean pirate:.
Deletionists and notability utilizers beware: Here we go again article DELETION. I dislike deletion and rather see an article stay and never be edited than see it go. Thats my very thoughts of deletion and I hate having to deal with it. I see that spam articles and nonsense articles as the only candidates for deletion.
"Most retarded deletion award" for the following articles: [2] [3] [4]
If you use a comma instead of <br /> format, then you have been brainwashed by the system as it is only a freaking guideline. I will never use the comma and I still follow every other rule.
Expanding the thought of what format to use, theres: the lazy comma (, ) something that makes it easier for view and offers a more professional feel (<br />) and my own thinking of using a pipe with a space on eithe side ( | ) instead of a comma to space it out more as well as the dash (- or −) and even the slash with a space on either side ( / ) although it would look like it was taken from some review site like All Music Guide. I think all are welcome to use or should be.
This edit doesn't make sense. <br /> are used for everything else and he formatted with a comma. What a hypocrite!
People are unlenient. They're so unlenient they are on the edge of being lenient.
The List of Christian metal bands really needs a protected page template on it because various anon edits make bad edits and create some chaos and re-cleanup of already cleaned up edits. The genre is also controversial of certain bands that were added. We need a good rest from this.
Opeth are immensely influenced by melodic death metal but they are progressive death metal and not melodic death!!! Melodic death has nothing to do with them. They mix progressive, neo-prog, a form of doom rock and "dark rock" into their music. Progressive music has its own melodic allure and melodic death metal bands are basically a bit metalcore influenced in some aspects of their compostions. Also melodic metalcore, "Melodic" does not mean that it is simply melodic in this sense, "melodic" is taken after the "melodic" in melodic death metal and it is as simple as that and could be associated with symphonic death metal ("Symphonic Metalcore") just like it is with melodic death metal. Melodic death metal is also a bit progressive so it intends that the band is "progressive metalcore" (emphasis on "") when the term, melodic metalcore is used.
Woa, the first two on my watchlist have +666 bytes. Scary.
The edits I have been making to the list of music genres have been based on findings, searches and the like. I do not listen to every genre I add.
I am sorry the whole comma to linespace deal I wish not to get into. I know a good rebel must react but I don't want to go through edit wars on every single page because of this and get a bad reputation, which is what I am scared to get from boldness. If I have something to say I'll give a mention. I am just really not in the mood for any more debating... and might even need a break from all this soon.
Clicked [[Category:]] instead of {{Defaultsort:}} dk how I did that...
I think flags should be used in infoboxes maybe in a different way. I don't see the need to take them out and other people think the complete opposite. I'm about to suggest an implementation of flagicons at Infobox musical artist. A quick visual of their location. Or this: the flag will automatically appear somewhere in the infobox for whatever country was typed in and will indicate their location rather quickly. This may be useful with bands with the same name, especially from my recent edit before. I basically think it looks a bit bare without the flagicon. The rule doesn't make sense in my opinion. Now after reading MOSFLAG I now understand things a lot better. All those things they put into consideration I agree on, but by the viewers (not editor's) standpoint I think a flag wouldn't decrease it's value (that much) if in the appropriate place and also don't think the reader would notice any misuse, etc. Still I won't be reverting any of those edits of those who remove them anymore or myself removing every flag in band articles just yet because I'm not a deletionist in any way. I've been thinking on drawing out a new infobox format that would support a band's accompaniment with a flag. But also the weird thing is I always seen infoboxes with flags when I first started, and nearly the reason why I think they feel bare.
My main thing I want Wikipedians to see me as is a helpful, respectful and committed one. I don't need all of this mess. I just can't believe it.
This ip address needs to stop stalking my contributions (or so it seems from my watchlist) and another's contribs particularly Kameejl. It is a punch to the face of editors that have done no wrong and are looked down upon when they are editing wikipedia to improve it the best they can, for example: following a vandals edits to remove them because you know how they edit (which I have actually done as well). It's invasion of privacy and not to mention a bit of, article ownership. It's 'extremely' unneeded removals I tell you... it does not say anything that flagicons can't be used in musical infoboxes (it says nothing about the use of flagicons on the music projects). Besides, nearly every Wikipedian uses them and doesn't know the rule and even some accomplished admins and more "pro" users don't know of it yet (I have even witnessed and experienced Wikipedian add one), so I guess Wikipedia is a "vandal" haven. This is what I was afraid of when I joined Wikipedia that stuff like this would happen. I joined Wikipedia originally to be underground and as I went "into the mainstream" things became extremely chaotic. I've always hated extreme debates but this is just ridiculous, stupid debates over the smallest of things; delimiters and flag icons... I have never seen such OCD on the internet before and it's very amusing I might add. I'm about to delete the infobox template so no one will ever have any opinions on those where it seems infoboxes are the cause of many debates. I wish that people would be less serious (and oppressive which I really do think so now) on the matter because it's just a flagicon and a little space it should be plain and simple to the average person but it's definitely not. I wonder if Wikipedians in 2002/2004 cared this much for these types of mass minor edits. Wikipedians do gain consensus but in my eyes that is a political POV vote if you can compare it to that and is a shared POV supremacy. Especially people that harshly object opinions. I would like to see what Wikipedia would be like if civility and Wikipedian conduct still persisted but all the rules/policies/guidelines we know of were removed. I wonder what would happen. It would maybe open a few doors and let people edit freely and see if some new idea rises just like new philosophies and rules were created or simply amend rules/policies/guidelines. But what can I do against such counter-opinion oppressive authority? I just might quit, go anon, use another user or take a looong break, and what will do it for me is having my page up for upfd. (user pages for deletion) So, cast us down, cast down the heathens, the blessed and the mediator...(all of us)
"I unfortunately was bombarded by 1 of their 'shit songs' recently" - 58.107.171.248 Seen here: [5] just wow calling it "shit" because he has never heard the vocals before, it doesn't mean it sucks, thats his personal opinion. He needs to get off and stop editing Wikipedia now before more of his edits suck and amuse me.
Not even sure when I should even take a break I'm kinda split between staying and leaving for awhile but idk when to start. I might go ahead on a black-ink logo spree then go off for awhile. I just can't chose.
I'm wondering what kind of logos can be used now because some bands style them up pretty well so an ink-logo would practically be impossible to create. If this is true then goodbye logos for most death bands. I will miss them. I say put all these image rules to ruin and just delete nonsense images.
What also is crazy, are the flagicons. I never seen someone so worked up about something merely decorative. Sure it's decorative but it's so minor and what is it hurting? (absolutely nothing (only Northern Ireland is all I see as a problem so making it universal is just plain moot to me)) and nothing says this holds true for bands (yet). I'm starting to think people here are extremist rule Nazis with a zero tolerance policy and disallow people to use their words on specific things because they use the majority against them which is a bit sad to me because they don't even understand the other side's arguments. Wikipedia seems to be biased to me and thats not a good thing.
In these hard times, I've been 50/50 on nearly everything. In doubt of some users as well, especially ones who delete or put notability tags on articles with only some of them I respect for doing away with something that is just bogus. I dislike being strained on inclusion and it's getting to the point that theres a snowball in hell's chance that anything will be allowed here because notable bands that just need to be expanded are thrown into the trash. If this is how wiki "works", then I will "quit" or start categorizing where I am completely safe or something completely different like gaming. My friend told me of a Wiki where it seems to be my (and everyones) edit heaven. I would feel completely stress-free and at ease there where rules apply but they allow some things and have less extremist type of rules.
You know what... I don't care anymore... remove those flags, those logos or what say you. I won't act against it.
Óðinn and Maanagerpants are not following anyone... those pages are just on their watchlist.
Omg... too many people adding non-Christian metal, editing the wrong genres in so they can be included to the Christian metal band list. That page doesn't need to be protected... it needs to be ignored and put to waste. Can't deal with it all so forget it since the genre is disputed amongst many anyway. It will stay at the end of my thoughts so it will never be edited.
The flags could equal to hate crimes against flags, thats how I see it. I don't see how flags can use nationality to make it a npov issue, I seriously can't and even after reading the rules, it does not cross my mind one bit.
"Making it more encyclopedic helps. Words like "apocalytic" and "brutal" don't help the article at all. I'm a metalhead. I appreciate shit like that, but the normal person won't. You gotta think like more of a normal person or a nerd. Encylopedic." -Nav | yay - that is exactly what I want more people to think of us, everyone seems to be biased against metalheads for being fan boys which is not right, we mustn't accuse each other on an encyclopedia and stay on neutral terms.
