User talk:The Haunted Angel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive

Archives

Contents

[edit] newpages

Hi, I have removed the Special:newpages transclusion from your userpage[1] as it is unfriendly to have that firehose of garbage being pointed at the Google servers in this way; for good or ill, Google caches your userpage. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, very well - I didn't realise that having the newpages up would be such a problem. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Theistic Satanism

Groups section is up. What do you think? :) Sticky Parkin 15:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, the article's looking fantastic as a whole! Compared to what it is now, it was barely an article before you got to it! The groups part looks good also - very well sourced. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Oooooooh a barnstar- that one's much appreciated as it's the first one I've got for actually doing some work on wiki:) So thanks a lot:) As you can see I've asked a couple of people to come on spot any weaknesses in the article...I can't bear to look yet lol .:) Sticky Parkin 10:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Do you think the satanic articles should be one article? I've thrown it all together in my userspace, this obviously is not the finished version but I think it could be done and would provide a good overview. User:Sticky_Parkin/Satanism Ignore that it still says 'theistic satanism' in headings and stuff because I've not changed it yet.:) However I don't know if it's advisable or not as they are in effect two different religions, but I suppose they are always compared to each other and sort of share a history. There could be a separate article for the extended list of doctrines and so on in the LaVeyan Satanism article- User:Sticky Parkin/LaVeyan Philosophy or something, or they could go in Anton LaVey or one of the other articles, or just be summrised and go in the main one. Sticky Parkin 12:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I think they should remain in the articles that they are in now, merging them seems a bit unnessescary. When I clicked on your first link, I thought that size would be the main issue, but in hindsight, it isn't that bad - what I'm concerned about is that there's different views of Satanism being put together in one article, when they are clearly notable enough to be seperate. Apart from the name of the religions, they are very different. Where did these ideas come from? The discussions on the theistic Satanism page? I havn't been reading said discussions in the past couple of days, y'see ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There's been nothing new there really I don't think since User:NeoFreak said the article shouldn't exist.:) I'm glad you agree with what I maybe subconsciously hoped lol because I thought if push comes to shove, the powers that be on wiki might be convinced that T.S. is not worth it's own article. I'm a worrier you see lol.:) Also, if there ever was a composite satanism article, it could more easily be a GA or FA, and people couldn't say it was a content fork. You know they've done studies that what determines whether something is a FA is mainly the length?:) Personally when reading wikipedia, longer articles are too long for my attention span lol.:)Sticky Parkin 13:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll have to agree with you, hehe. Still, I think NeoFreak's the only one thus far that has expressed distaste towards the article's being there, so I'm sure if it'll come to it proper, the articles will remain as they are. ≈ The Haunted Angel 13:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: E-Mail

Hey! Uh, nope, I have not done that yet. I do have an email address, but not a wikipedia one or anything. How do i got about creating one? Thanks, btw, for sticking up for me on the metalcore article, and in other instances. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Just go to your "my preferences" section and put your email in there; it's designed so that I can email you, but your email remains anonymous, as does mine (it'll just say something like The_Haunted_Angel@wikipedia.org, or something to that effect). I think you may have to verify it quickly, it's just something I wish to bring to your attention, that I'd rather not say on Wikipedia itself. ≈ The Haunted Angel 18:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay. I just enabled it, but I still don't see anything on my user or talk page. Did I mess up? Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I think you've done it right - it says I can email you now; so just keep an eye on your inbox. ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ok. how did you do that, though? Send me an email, I mean. I went to your user and talk page and I didn't see an option to email you. Maybe I'm just an idiot. It's a very real possibility. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It's on the left, when you're on the person's user page, half way down the tool box - it'll say "E-mail this user" ≈ The Haunted Angel 19:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok. Thanks. Well I responded to your email. Sorry, it took me so long to get back to you, I had class. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 23:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Also

On that same topic, I see you had to revert the other IP user on metalcore. They just never stop. I looked through that IP's edits and they've made a lot of bad edits and a lot of bad faith warnings for vandalism to people who didn't vandalize at all (like me) and were just changing things in a way that pissed off said IP user, I guess. That user needs to stop. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this. This particular user has EXCESSIVELY warred with me every time they get on (which is luckily only around twice a month). The user just reverted me yesterday as you can see when I edited the metalhead article and greatly improved it. I noticed something, though (it could be a coincidence). Besides always trying to war with me, this user has also warred with a user by the name of Angry Shoplifter. Well guess what? One of those two IP users that reverted me twice on the metalcore article (not the one that only had two or three edits; the other one) happens to have warred with Angry Shoplifter as well, in their short number of edits. Coincidence? Possibly, but I think not. There's no proving it, though. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 18:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Dude! You are NOT going to believe this. Look at this. Yet another IP user, right? And he reverts me on Overkill, where other IP users reverted me AND his hisotry shows he edited Tom Petty. Well, guess what? Look at this user's contributions. The one who reverted me on metalcore. Notice some similarities? They BOTH reverted an edit on Overkill and both reverted edits on Tom Petty AND the latter one I just listed is the one who's been warring with Angry Shoplifter!!!! Same as the one I listed above!!!! So, how much would you like to bet that all three of those users are the one and same person. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 19:49, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Woah, holy crap - it's sock puppet week by the looks of things! I see what you're saying, and that Tom Petty edit really clinches it for me. My guess is we are quickly gaining the evidence we need for WP:SSP - we just need to find who the puppeteer is. Feel free to remove this post from your talk page though (if you do, I'll do the same on mine), just in case the puppeteer sees - although if s/he does, at least they may stop the edit warring. ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genre delimiter trouble!

Hey, what's up? We got problems! During my absence I see that line breaks have seemingly become more popular for metal bands (at least). That's fine but look at the Template:Infobox Musical artist. Someone recently changed it while I was gone. It now has both infoboxes with comma breaks! That doesn't even make sense, to have two infoboxes that are the same. One is supposed to have comma breaks and the other line breaks. This means trouble. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 16:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey man - I've looked through the history, but I can't actually find where it was ever line breaks, unless I just missed it. Still, it's got full protection - no one but a sysop can edit it. Still, I don't think it's going to be that bad yet, as there's still no agreed upon consensus for what is right and wrong... Still, we should keep an eye out ≈ The Haunted Angel 16:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I know about the history thing. For some reason that page has always had a problem with the history. No matter what date you look at it all looks the same. Just look at the edit summaries and you will see what they are talking about but you won't see the change. But if you're like me, I used to visit that page all the time and the infobox on the right with Audioslave had line break in the genre section. Kameejl was instrumental in making that happen and I'll not soon forget it. We discussed it in my archives somewhere. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, on another look, I think it's all just made up of templates and such, whereas the infobox code itself is what's protected. Either way, we'll have to keep an eye out to see if people have decided that commas are right, when there is no consensus. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
That would explain it. Well more people seem to be in favor of line breaks at the moment (at least on metal band articles) but people who prefer comma breaks might start changing them and citing the template now that it's been changed. As far as I know, there is no consensus. It looks like it might have been changed just because someone felt that line breaks only pertained to more rock and metal articles and not to the whole wikipedia, and they believed it should be uniform or something. The problem is, comma breaks do work alright for most music artist articles, but when you come to rock and especially metal bands, you start getting long genre names and a mixing of multiple genres (or a change of them) and so you get this info that requires much more space, which I think favors the line breaks. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 17:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I do agree with you; I havn't seen as much discussion on the subject though in the past month or so. ≈ The Haunted Angel 17:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Music of the Night

Hi there,

I received a message that I had "vandalised" an article on "the music of the night". This is untrue. Indeed, I expanded the article by explaining the origin of the theme that Lloyd Webber uses in that song - it is lifted (as I wrote) from Puccini's opera La Fanciulla del West. I thus intend to change the article back.

I look forward to hearing from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.99.176 (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit which I reffered to was this one, where you claim that Lloyd Webber "stole" the theme. This constitutes vanadalism as it is classed as defamation of Living persons - it was an unsourced claim at Lloyd Webber's expense. Even though you have worded it better now, I'm afraid I will still have to remove it based on a lack of evidence. Hope this clears things up ≈ The Haunted Angel 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Prize fighter inferno.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Prize fighter inferno.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BlueAzure (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC) --BlueAzure (talk) 04:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)