User talk:M3tal H3ad/Archive1

Hey. The main problem with the article is that it is written more like a fan site, and assumes that the readers are also fans. For example, the Style paragraph, the main part of the article, is full of unsourced technical information written very informally. The snakes paragraph similarly doesn't contain a single source. I'd try and find interviews where he describes his playing style; here's a couple that'll hopefully help[1], [2]. Any more problems, just ask. Cheers, SteveLamacq43 14:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing an excellent job with Slayer lately. Just wondering, do you mind using the {{cite web}} template on the references? Please refer to the WP:CITE for more information. Oh and since you haven't got a proper welcome yet:

Welcome!

Hello, M3tal H3ad, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough. But.. there seems to be no source mentioned on the logo image. Michaelas10 (Talk) 09:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple "citation needed" tags to the article, hope you can work these out. Right now, I say the article is about half-way to good article status, it still needs a lot of clean-up, copyediting, and citations work done. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see many problems with the "controversy" section. It has many facts which do not provide a reference to why they are controversional among the general public, and there is nothing written there about the Christ Illusion cover controversy. Michaelas10 (Talk) 10:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the image at the section. Feel free to remove the text about SS-3 if you are sure it is original research. Michaelas10 (Talk) 12:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not an expert on the topic, so can't be sure it meets the comprehensive aspect of FA, but it seems close to being a FAC. I suggest that you wait for the peer review to close first and have another shot at getting GA status first. Obviously as you said make sure there are no {{fact}} when you submit for GA/FA and also you should try to make stub articles for any red links (Tony Scaglione for example). It does take time but it's highly worth going through each stage as you'll have more chance of succeding at FAC first time. Good luck! Alexj2002 09:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i noticed you review a lot of FACs. I have recently been doing a lot of work on Slayer to get it up to FA status. Perhaps you could take a quick browse and point out any thing thats missing or not written well. If you don't, thats fine as i see you're very busy. Thank you for you time :) M3tal H3ad 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really swamped for the next few days (both in real life and on Wiki), and should be able to get to it by the weekend. Can you make that timeline a bit smaller - it wraps off my screen. If I forget to review it by this Sunday, pls do ping me again - I'm so busy, I might forget :-) Sandy (Talk) 21:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Timeline is much better - the article is in good shape, and the structure looks sound (WP:MOS, WP:LAYOUT, etc.).
• Expand the lead - see WP:LEAD. Three solid paragraphs, that summarize the article well, and are compelling and brilliantly written (but leave that work til last, after a thorough copyedit).
• Too many fair use images - this isn't an area I understand well, so I suggest you ask Jkelly (talk · contribs).
• Although it's technically OK to label your History sections by decade, it would be much more interesting if you would label the sections according to some natural breaks in the group's history, with descriptive titles. History has a way of not going in tens :-) Find some more natural timeline according to the group's history, and label those periods and write around them.
• What are EPs ? (sorry :-)
• Who is Walser ? (Walser, pg. 14 )
• Consistency in ref style - put last name first on all author names.
• Angelfire is a personal website - are you sure that is a reliable source? Self-published sources rarely are. Many of us who review articles at FAC don't support articles which rely on fan sites or personal sites, and prefer to see news sources or hard print books, so go through your references with a careful eye towards the quality of references.
• Consistency in ref style - we don't know where this ref comes from (specify site, as you did on others.) Less Than Zero CD. Retrieved on 2006-11-29.
• You have some sources listed as from Kerrang, when the site is Rockonthenet. Make sure all of your references are listed in a consistent style.
• Picking a random section to check prose and refs:
  • (This is not a sentence.) Vocal overdubs on "Temptation" and a child's voice pleading underneath the track "Dead Skin Mask" about necrophile Ed Gein–as well as the title track, which originally made use of a flute.
  • (This is not a sentence - subject, predicate?) Released on September 14, 1993 entitled "Disorder" though was actually a medley of three Exploited songs, "War", "UK '82", and "Disorder".
  • 1990s is just a retelling of what they did in the 90s, without imparting any significance or encyclopedic commentary to those events. It's not woven into a compelling story of the group history. For example, why Dahmer? Why have relations between Kerry King and Robb Flynn badly deteriorated? What is the significance of these events?
  • (This sentence needs a grammar/punctuation check.) A second lawsuit, an amended complaint for damages against Slayer, their label and other industry and label entities, was dismissed, Judge E. Jeffrey Burke stating "I do not consider Slayer's music obscene, indecent or harmful to minors"
  • Slayer have been accused of holding Nazi sympathies, (by whom?) basing this claim (grammar problem there) on the lyrics of the song "Angel of Death". The lyrics were inspired by the acts of Josef Mengele, (according to whom?) This needs to be sourced.
• Generally, it looks well referenced, although you should check the veracity of your sources, but I think you need to get a new set of eyes, not familiar with your text, but who knows the territory, to do a very thorough copyedit. Try asking Deckiller (talk · contribs) or LuciferMorgan (talk · contribs) if they know of copyeditors who work on music articles. Good luck !! Sandy (Talk) 23:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of whom to nominate as a possible person who might copyedit the article - metal isn't loved by the right people on Wikipedia. Having said that, the article makes a lot of elementary mistakes which should be easy to spot - a lot of sentences aren't actually sentences as Sandy has stated. As concerns Flynn, I don't really see the significance - King has criticised Iron Maiden, Cradle of Filth, Metallica; the list goes on and on. LuciferMorgan 20:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as someone who used to do interviews for them (Anthony Morgan), I wouldn't use Rockdetector as a source for biographical info. The site has been heavily criticised for its inaccuracies. LuciferMorgan 20:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the King and Flyyn incident should be mentioned as in the reference Flynn considered King a friend until things turned sour. These two bands toured together and havent toured together since, so i believe its worth to mention that. M3tal H3ad 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, thanks for the kind words on the Megadeth article. I think the Slayer article still needs work - expansion, formatting, and more of an overall formal tone. Some sections sound choppy, such as:

"Early in 1982, Jeff Hanneman was with a friends band and noticed Kerry King trying out for the position as guitarist. They started talking, picking up their guitars and playing together. King asked Hanneman if he wanted to make a band with him, Hanneman agreed. King previously knew bassist and vocalist Tom Araya from a previous band."

A lot of that stuff is unnecessary, like: "They started talking, picking up their guitars and playing together. King asked Hanneman if he wanted to make a band with him, Hanneman agreed." These sentences could be left out completely, and the first few lines could read somthing like:

In 1982, Kerry King met Jeff Hanneman and formed Slayer. The two recruited bassist & vocalist Tom Araya, who had played with King in a previous band, and drummer Dave Lombardo, who met King while delivering pizzas.

A lot of sentences are also getting chopped up, and left incomplete. One example: "While Mustaine wanted King to stay on a permanent basis." is not a complete sentence.

Now that Megadeth is out of the way, I should have more time to work on the article, continue the expansion and improve the prose. Also, I still intend to get those song samples up, I have just been busy at home lately (I edit at work, but can't upload songs here). Keep up the good fight! \m/ Skeletor2112 11:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sshot-02.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ---Remember the dot 01:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

uhh i uploaded that like 4 months ago, go ahead and delete it. M3tal H3ad 08:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it could be an A-class article and I intended to message you about that. It's generally not practice to rate anything above a 'B' on that page, though I agree that the wording is ambiguous on that point. The reason for this is that there have been several cases where someone has assessed an article 'A' which subsequently failed 'GA'. Since all 'A' articles are supposed to be better than 'GA', this is a problem. So, I recommend submitting it to Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. JRP 03:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favor though? Can you rate or "on hold" Charles Edward Magoon off of Wikipedia:Good articles/Candidates. I know you assess there frequently. I won't be able to be on Wikipedia for a week or so because of the holiday and don't want it failing when I'm not around to fix it. (I'm considering helping assess articles there, but not quite ready yet. I've been reading all of the "Fail" messages to try and get a better handle on criteria before I start. I don't want to be the weak link in that process...) JRP 04:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Just what I wanted. I've done a number of fixed now, so please feel free to take a look. Otherwise, I'll edit some more tomorrow when I'm more awake. JRP 05:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would point out that while some of your suggestions are valid and I will try and rectify in a speedy manner, some of your suggestions have no basis in precendent or criteria. Specifically: six references in the lead, it should contain none or very little. Remember it is a summary of the article where information will be referenced in the body ... um... take a look at featured articles, such as Halo:Combat Evolved, Torchic, et al. References in the header are not a problem, and GA criteria says nothing about references. David Fuchs(talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just contributed a whole bunch to that PR and I thought I'd give you a heads-up so you could have a look. I hope it's useful. Good luck with the article! Seegoon 21:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on Henry Pittock. I have implemented your suggestions. I'm new to the Biography project, and the "feedback" is helpful, not only on this article, but as a guide for future efforts. I was not entirely sure which infobox best fit a pioneer newspaper publisher and tycoon, so settled on the one designed for journalists. Please let me know if you think it should be swapped out in favor of another. Also, the article is still tagged as "unassessed." Does the peer review process take care of that, or do I need to do something else? Thanks again. -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 18:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your follow-up on my talkpage. Your comments are spot-on, and I will take another run at crafting a replacement lead. I've been offline all day because the cable company botched my upgrade to 10Mb broadband, overclocking and frying the modem. I won't bore you with the details, but my brain is as fried as that com chip, so I'll save the rewrite until tomorrow. And, yes, I did mean the quality assessment when I was referring to unassessed. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction in that regard, too. Now, I think I'll back away slowly from the computer, and do something else this evening. (Fat chance.) -- "J-M" (Jgilhousen) 04:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you made a comment on an FAC about refs belonging after full stops - I've seen a couple of editors mentioning that, and I'm wondering where it's coming from? Refs don't always have to go after full stops - they usually do, but there are times when they are needed mid-sentence (to source a specific part of the sentence). Just wanted to check, since it seems that idea is proliferating ... Sandy (Talk) 14:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Footnotes_come_after_punctuation From citing sources

Footnotes at the end of a sentence or phrase are placed immediately after the punctuation. For example: President Bush called for a halt to the violence,[3] and opposed a timetable for withdrawal.[4] i guess it's to keep it looking organized, which it does. M3tal H3ad 01:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:FN says it needs a dash after the reference if it's in the middle of a sentence. M3tal H3ad 01:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refs come after punctuation, with no space, when they follow punctuation, but they don't *have* to follow punctuation - you missed this part on WP:FN: Place a ref tag at the end of the term, phrase, sentence, or paragraph to which the note refers.[3] If the note refers to only one part, word, or phrase in the sentence, it's OK to put it there, even if there's no punctuation. What WP:FN triex to explain is not to do this [2]. (ref before punctuation). Sandy (Talk) 01:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i was told to put it after punctuation and not in the middle of a sentence, many editors do the same thing :S. M3tal H3ad 01:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know - a lot of people are misreading WP:FN. The purpose of WP:FN is to remind editors not to put the ref before punctuation. But, here's an example a mid-sentence cite:

Contemporary prevalence estimates range from 1 to 3 per 1,000^[1] to 10 per 1,000;^[2] the latter yields an estimate of 530,000 school-age children with Tourette's in the United States, based on 2000 US census data.^[3]

See how each fact has to be cited, even though one is mid-sentence, yet refs always follow punctuation. Best, Sandy (Talk) 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy evaluation. Will do and you ROCK!NinaEliza 16:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- I was the nominator and main author of Keggy the Keg. I have addressed all the concerns you raised when the GA failed -- could you take another look? (And if you think it's okay now, would I have to put it through GA again?)

The only thing I didn't do (yet) is remove the Keggy Blog in the external links section. I know that blogs are not typically reliable sources, but the Keggy blog is published by the creators about Keggy's recent activities. So since it's an official mouthpiece for the mascot, so I figured it was okay -- akin to say, linking to The Huffington Post from Arianna Huffington's article. What do you think? If it's still no good, I'm fine with removing it, but I just wanted to mention that first.

Thanks for your input! Dylan 22:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions. I added the thumb tag to the image to reduce the size and removed the quotes from the {{cite web}}s. As far as the lead is concerned, I don't understand why it needs another paragraph -- I can't think of anything more to add without being redundant; I think what's there succinctly sums up the overall content of the article, and per the WP:LEAD guidelines, an article of this size (< 15,000 characters) should only have one lead paragraph. Besides, there's no conditions at WP:GA? that mandate certain lengths of the article or of the lead, so I don't see why either of those factors (even if not optimal right now) should prevent this from satisfying GA criteria. Dylan 07:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left comments on the talk page. M3tal H3ad 07:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your speedy reply to the GA nomination for Jeff Tweedy. I've fixed up the article to meet your suggestions. The one thing that I cannot fix is online versions of Billboard Heatseeker charts: they require a username and a password. Technically, they should not need a URL anyway because they can be verified by viewing the printed source. Teemu08 06:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never got around to properly thanking you for Halo 2's GA review. I probably should have read through the guidelines better to make it easier on you, but the article - and my own editing- are better for it. Thanks again, David Fuchs(talk • contribs) 22:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one for you to test your knowledge of WP:WIAFA before you approach :-) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AC/DC I found a copyedit need in the lead, and stopped reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, M3tal, I saw your note on your user page about Slayer needing a copy edit - you might try this group: Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors. Good luck with it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the thororugh analyis, I now addressed the points you mentioned as good as possible. Hope it looks better now. If you have comments, just drop me a line. —Onomatopoeia 15:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merged as you wished, and disambiguated the page better. With the table, I am a bit out of my range, but you said it does not matter. Hope it is GA now.—Onomatopoeia 08:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did more improving, can you take a look? —Onomatopoeia 14:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give that another look? One more thing I should mention. The Tropical cyclone Wikiproject has a guideline that we only reference when a new source is introduced. For example, if sentences 1 and 2 are from source a, and sentence 3 is from source b, ref a goes after #2, and ref b goes after #3. Hurricanehink (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please give a comment of your message that are being disscussed now here: Talk:Union_Army_Balloon_Corps#Lincoln.2C_Lincoln.2C_Bo-Bincoln.E2.80.A6? — Indon (reply) — 09:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please join the WikiProject Trivium Asics 01:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the Barnstar. I'm closing in on 20000 edits....most of them vandal rv's. I guess I've found my niche. Congradulations on the Featured Article BTW. And good luck on the one's you're working on now. Again, Thanks! Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey,

Thanks for adding the fair use tags to the Slayer image. However, why not upload it onto the main Slayer article?

Musikxpert 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it and see if anything leaps out at me. For the most part all I ever look at in guitarist articles is the "tech" aspects.(and monitor for vandalism...of course) I will give it a decent read-over and see what leaps out "content-wise". One thing right off the top of my head, from a previous reading, was the GFDL-"presumed"??? tag on the infobox pic. It's a good pic but Wikipedia is becoming so strict with images I am guessing sooner or later it's going to be deleted. I saw Slayer in 1985 on, what I believe, was their first European tour. I think I was one of the oldest people in the audience. I went and saw them again in the summer of 2005. I was DEFINITELY the oldest person in the audience that time :) .I was deaf for 3 days!. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a very quick browse over here are a couple a thoughts... The article doesn't have a "biography section", Specifically "pre-Slayer" + "life away from Slayer". It doesn't/shouldn't have a "Slayer-centric" bio-type section(since there's already a Slayer article) but could still have a small Slayer section that can focus on Hanneman's role and could incorporate the already well detailed Lyrics section. The influences section could also fuse the "influences" section as a sub???...Maybe?. The bit about the Slayer Nazi-sympathies in the lead-in is a bit awkward. That is better suited to the Lyrics section. I would end that sentence at the word 'music'. Wikipedia is really starting to frown on "Trivia", "in Popular Culture" and "Miscelleous" sections as being unencyclopedic. Hanneman's "beer" section, albiet cited, could probably be rolled up into another section. The gear section is how it should be....accurate and without superfluity. Is there a reference for it? It could back up the detail. Well, that's what leaps out right now. Hope that helps. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 12:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. Seeing as it's up there then, is there anywhere we can use it?

Musikxpert 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slayer - talk page comments added - cheers! --PopUpPirate 12:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say thankyou for your suggestions on the peer review of al-Kindi. I have now implemented them in the article and I hope you will be able to provide more direction on how you think the article can be improved.

Thanks again, Alexander.Hainy 16:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching your progress on the article all along(it pops up in my VandalProof window frequently) and I've really been impressed with all the work that's been done. The only thing that has ever popped out at me is the "flow" of the lead-in. I can't really explain it. It's like bits of the third paragraph work with bits of the first??? Somehow, when I read it, it just seems to start a 'thought'...ping pong between 2 other 'thoughts' and then back. I know that's confusing but, like I said, I can't really explain it nor can I give my own re-wording on how it should look. The rest of the article looks OK to me. Good balance between the different sections. I expect, being a heavy metal article, that the FA procedure could get quite brutal. I read it all with prior knowledge of the subject. FA judges who have no idea about who Slayer is will likely find something to whine about. I wish I could say what bothers me about the lead...but it just isn't easy to put into words. If I can spot of anything else I will let you know. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can spot what leaps out at me now regarding the lead. The first paragraph mentions sales(an accolade) then jumps straight to a style comment. The secon paragraph starts with origin/early accolade...then jumps to another 'style' or 'style/result of style'. THen the third paragraph jumps back onto the accolade theme started in the first paragraph with the sales comment. Without altering any text for flow I can cut and paste the sentences from the lead to show what I mean:

Slayer is an American thrash metal band, formed in 1982 by guitarists Jeff Hanneman and Kerry King...Slayer rose to fame as a leader of the American thrash metal movement, with their 1986 influential release Reign in Blood,[1] which has been called "the heaviest album of all time"...and are credited as one of the "Big Four" thrash metal bands, along with Megadeth, Metallica, and Anthrax.

The band are known for their distinctive musical traits, involving fast tremolo picking, guitar solos, double bass drumming, and screaming vocals....Slayer's lyrics and album art, which cover topics such as serial killers, satanism, religion, warfare and the Holocaust have generated album bans, delays, lawsuits and strong criticism from religious groups and the public.

Since their debut record in 1983, the band has released, two live albums, one box set, and ten studio albums with sales peaking over four million. The band has received Grammy nominations, and headlined major music festivals worldwide; such as Ozzfest and the Download Festival,

I know that looks messy...as I mentioned I didn't alter any text to make the sentences flow...I simply cut them 1 line at a time and put them here to show(or try to show) what I meany by "thought flow". That being said, now that I've combinded the sales/nominations/headliner bits that third clump of text now seems to push WP:PEACOCK a little. But that's sort of what I was getting at with my comments from last night. Is that any help. Or does it make it worse? :) Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 13:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You responded to my comment about this article when commenting on the FAC on Windows Vista. It was a good point to check if the lists where there pre-FAC. Do you think it's worth a FAR? A quick look also shows a lot of fair use images and a pretty top heavy article (large intro). Mark83 23:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know where an online version is held of a 1990 issue of Metal Maniacs where Slayer discuss the above album? Right now the article on the above album is a bit crufty and I wouldn't mind doing a minor cleanup of it.LuciferMorgan 13:13, 16 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Sure, I'll give it a quick runthrough. — Deckiller 20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not bad, it just needs the usual runthrough by 1-2 people. It's actually above average IMO. — Deckiller 15:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, glad to see Slayer at FAC; although I didn't get the chance to copyedit the entire article, if people object over the prose, I'd be willing to go further into it when I can find the time :) — Deckiller 17:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Hard work pays off. Congradulations on getting the Slayer article to featured status. Well done! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to do? :) Wiki has 1.5 million articles. 1.49999 million of them are crap....take your pick :) . Actually, Skeletor2112 spoke to me a while ago about pushing 3 heavy metal articles to FA status. Megadeth, Iron Maiden and Metallica. Iron Maiden is a former FA that has fallen into the dumpster...but will eventually rise back up. As for his other targets...Megadeth is FA'd. And now with Slayer in...that leaves 2 of the big 4 left to go. The Metallica article is huge and under constant attack from vandals. Getting it FA'd will take concentrated and sustained contributions from a small team of editors. I say why not pick up Anthrax as a pet project and run with it? Maybe? :) Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 03:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed the lyrics and wrote "removed copyright lyrics" does this mean that no lyrics to such songs are allowed on here? I appologise if it did break any copyright laws, I didn't realise! Asics^Talk 14:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Apart from the current event tag (which tbh should really be on Alexander Litvinenko poisoning, but theres nothing there atm), anything needing to be done for GA? Thanks, RHB 19:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done pretty much all of that. The only one I'm slightly off on is the weasel words - as the investigation is not currently complete, and probably wont be for a while. If you can cite any specific problems you have with any weasel words, I'd be happy to attempt to cite them. Thanks for your input, especially since you're also working on an FA atm. RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 21:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poking you, did you see the second message? Thanks, RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 19:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, rm some more external links and fixed three references, including two to Yahoo because Yahoo's drop dead after a while :/ Anything else? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. It's been decided that your proposed move of Iron maiden (disambiguation) to Iron maiden isn't a candidate for an uncontroversial move. I've re-established the formal move discussion on Talk:Iron maiden (disambiguation), if you'd like to express your opinion there. Tevildo 17:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that everything? RHB ^{Talk - Edits} 18:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually commented that Hanneman plays more melodic, which I'm sure has been mentioned in a Slayer interview somewhere. The section should be called "Style and influence". Try to find instances where a person says "Jeff Hanneman was my hero when I learned to play" etc. One thing I'd avoid is being Slayer centric. In this section you're answering the question "What did Jeff Hanneman bring to the world of Metal?" - I think these sections are integral to musician articles, and definitely help elevate their quality. To be NPOV, you can find critics who say he's good and others who say he is naff.LuciferMorgan 00:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction sections to Jeff Hanneman interviews, that's what you should take a look at. The interviewer may make a comment about Hanneman.LuciferMorgan 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editor's been making poor edits to "Reign in Blood" - you better either revert their stuff or mop it up a bit.LuciferMorgan 00:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The info about what guitarists Jeff is influenced by should be under the "Style" section, and not the "Slayer" section. I think Pap Smear should be mentioned in the article too. LuciferMorgan 08:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the GA feedback on the Ellis Paul article. I have made corrections/edits/revisions per your suggestions. What is the next step in the GA candidacy process? Kmzundel 13:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I've given the "Controversy" section a rewrite in this article. I'm going to add other sections to the article soon also. Thought you'd like to know. LuciferMorgan 17:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure what I plan to do with the article as concerns getting it to GA or FA. There's probably the material there as its a newer album, just depends on what I end up doing with it. LuciferMorgan 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I'm considering trying to get it to FA. It'll take me a few days work though. LuciferMorgan 13:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a major write to Christ Illusion - take a look. LuciferMorgan 20:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still have a few things to address in the article before I go further with it. It'll be a few days though as I'm a little busy. LuciferMorgan 14:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would like to thank you for giving advice and pointing out the errors and weaknesses of the article about Aarni. I will edit the article so that those weaknesses can no longer be seen on the article. Thanks again! Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • See my edits!)} 11:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I did everything on the list except convert all citations. It'll take me a while to convert all of them as I have to go back and find the info for each one. --Ted87 08:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Completed all suggestions left on my talk page and the article talk page. --Ted87 23:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Tompng.PNG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 23:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks a lot for looking at this article and giving a few excellent suggestions. However, I feel that I should point out that none of the issues you noted preclude the article from "GA" status, and it does meet every criteria listed there (and then some). I think you gave it more of a FA-level going-over, which is also much appreciated. I sort of feel like the GA process is a bit broken anyway, but anything that improves an article is worthwhile.-Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 04:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, although honestly, what article doesn't need more sources? I'm sometimes tempted to put that tag on the FA each day and see who's willing to argue about it. Anyway, I put that tag on because another editor literally put a "citation needed" tag after every sentence that didn't have a footnote at the end, so I deleted all the tags and put that template at the top to appease him. In any case, your suggestions are helpful. -Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 05:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing reliable sources. This is considered vandalism by wikipedia, so please stop doing it. --Dexter prog 01:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the problem with the sources? . . . --Dexter prog 01:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, M3tal H3ad. I'm currently trying to bring this article from the near-stub that it was a few days ago to GA status if not FA. I've been reading around about the wikification of years and I don't seem to find any consensus. In some FAs I've found, there are even some places where dates are wikified and other places where they are not. At the moment, my article (which is in its early adolescent stage) has a scattering just like that. I wonder if you could give me a hand in figuring this out. Thanks a lot. JHMM13 (T | C) 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I was looking for! Thanks a lot. JHMM13 (T | C) 02:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sm6.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 08:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hanneman should be ready for GA, though I don't generally tend to nominate articles I've worked on for GA - seems like it has little meaning since anyone can promote or demote GA status. I've added two cite requests, the first one being very important - make sure you fill at least that one. Good luck with Hanneman. LuciferMorgan 10:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Climate_of_Minnesota have been taken care of on Climate of Minnesota and a 'in popular culture' section has been added as well. -Ravedave ^{(Adopt a State)} 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi, you recently gave some advice and comments on the Luton article which i am hoping to get to GA status. I have gone though the comments and made changes, whcih i would be grateful if you would have a look at and offer any further comments?

Also you suggested that the web references need to be changed, unfortunalty i havent been able to work out how to do this, is there a help page explaining this?

Many thanksGazMan7 18:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been working with GazMan7 on the Luton article, and your advice has been great, but I am unsure what you mean about 1 sentence paragraphs. If you could explain this a bit more fully for me, I can get onto it right away. If you wouldn't mind, please leave a message for me on my talk page about it. Thanks a lot, Random articles 18:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review. After going through with your recommendations, the article will go through your suggested avenues of evaluation. That being said, you said that "The references describe where to find the sourced information, no need it just bloats the references. Provide a title, publisher (website), author (if there is one) and date retrieved."[3]. However, according to Wikipedia's policy on citing sources in languages other than English:

Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Since essentially all of the article's sources are in Chinese, I am simply following policy in helping readers check "what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." -Pandacomics 09:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Than k you for your comments on the FAC review of the article Campaign history of the Roman military at the FAC page Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Campaign history of the Roman military. I believe that I have now addressed in the article all the points that you raised, with the exception of the article size, on which point I have responded with some comments. Please could you take another look at the article and my responses to your comments and decide if I have made the requested changes, and if you are now able to vote support or oppose for the article's FAC cadidacy. Many thanks - PocklingtonDan 16:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]