User talk:Funeral/Archive 5

Newbs??? =

I guess we were all there at some point along the way weren't we :D . 156.34.214.181 (talk) 23:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

:-D... But seriously, he only started real editing (he had a handful of edits before that) this month... they shouldn't give out tools to people that quickly. Funeral 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Slash

Hey. This image Image:Slash 1.jpg is over on Wiki Commons. I am not sure how legal it is. But for now... it's on Commons and would look better in the Slash page. Its a prot so I can't touch it. 156.34.225.75 (talk) 01:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks. Funeral 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion

This edit (read the edit summary carefully) is Libs pushing the limits of WP:BOLD and exposing Libsy's "plus grande nads" to all Wiki and seeing just how long it takes a logo crufter to rv the edit. I believe, based on both the policy and the long overdue discussion on it... that the edit is a valid one. Wikipedia, by it's own mandate, is to be a free encyclopedia promoting free-use content when/wherever possible. You just cannot get any more free-use than plain text. Most bands copyright their logos and therefore using them requires well worded fair-use rationale. And if free-use always wins out over fair-use... I think my edit summary is noble, just and true. Time will tell. Do you agree? Do you disagree? Do you have a third opinion. I would be most interested in finding out. And I invite you to go ahead and invite anyone you wish into the conversation. Perhaps the discussion can be moved to my static IP page where it can be an informal chat... rather than a discussion... leading to consensus... leading to guidelines... leading to policies... and all that other Wiki-crap :D . Does free-use always win? I think Wikipedia was built on the foundation of "free-use". What are your thoughts? 156.34.225.75 (talk) 01:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think logos should ever be used in an infobox, they just look horrible and don't add anything. I don't really see the need for a logo anywhere in the band article (like here: [1]) but I'm not against or in favour of them being used. In articles like this I think it's fine to use them, though - it's the same as using album covers on album pages. Funeral 22:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on the topic is all over the place and not centred at any one project. I included a link in my edit summary for the Iron Maiden edit if you feel like commenting there. I have an interesting conversation about the subject on Wiki alf's page... if you want to join in there. The fact that the people who have instigated this very valid discussion have their topic spread out over so many pages doesn't help their cause. I tried a test logo rm, with a valid edit summary, a few weeks ago on the Def Leppard page. A crufter put it back. I think my Iron Maiden edit summary is very solid and can be used in other articles. I also have an opinion about the Iron Maiden logo. You can read that on Scarian or Alfs pages. Thanks for the input! 156.34.213.216 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

There it is!!!!! Consensus=No Logos in infoboxes!!!. How often does Wikipedia come up with a good idea??? Well... today=1 :D. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 15:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Finck Picture (and other matters)

Okay, I e-mailed the photographer about that picture as well. There's a good amount of pictures from the current line up over at the commons now (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Guns_N%27_Roses), I'd appreciate your input on what you think the best picture for the GN'R article infobox should be.

I think that it's ready to be resubmitted for Good Article status, so if you want to discuss it with anyoner else first, then send it on its way . . .

Also, the November Rain article is in pretty good shape now. I think the two tags up top can definitely be removed, and that it could probably make good article status as well. (Except maybe for the length of the video synopsis. But maybe not.) If you want to review it or send it to someone who can, that'd be most excellent.

Thanks! GrimmC (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I got permission for the Finck picture and uploaded it to his article. GrimmC (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Hawks10

I gave him a final warning for his Dimmu Borgir edit... he's made a couple more edits where he's giving WP:POV rationales. I've picked off one already... your call on the rest... you could even report him to WP:ANI now if you wanted... except I think he's making an effort now, maybe he just doesn't know how Wikipedia works just yet... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you've...

Been performing the occasional "logo-ostomy" on some pages. I am just going throught the ... ungh... LIST of melodic death metal bands (useless list :D ) and I can't un-logo Children of Bodom because it's a prot. Could you... if you have the time... perform the logoectomy for me? 10 Q . 156.34.208.112 (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

PS... it's got a flagicon too. Yeesh 156.34.208.112 (talk) 01:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Video of the 2006 Better

Thanks! Now I finally get it. Wow, both of the versions of Better sound so similar I thought the newer one was just a fan remix! It is such an amazing song. —Preceding unsigned comment added by sweersa (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains

Hello, would you mind re-commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Alice in Chains? The FAC discussion was not closed, but it was re-started by the FA director. Fell free not to, that would be fine by me. Thank you, —Burningclean _{[Speak the truth!]} 01:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your NPWatcher application

Dear Funeral,

Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join NPWatcher.

Jmlk17 05:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions

You've expressed an opinion on this subject before I believe. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Shaq

Sorry, I was driving buy and assumed it was vandalism. Need to be better at keeping the faith. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you around today?

I decided to do some good ol' fashion editing today. Picked on the Mick Taylor article because it was in bad shape and resembled a fansite and not an encyclopedia article. Problem is I've run up against 2 editors that prefer the cruft over the concrete. I am just taking it 1 paragraph at a time. First 2 sections are "getting there"... the thrid section just needs a lot of re-wording. It was written in fanboyish and needs converted to English. Are you around any at all today to help out? Libs 142.167.73.151 (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it in a few hours. Funeral 18:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. Turned out the adversaries were just an adversary who got caught creating a false consensus by using multiple accounts. I am just plugging away one paragraph at a time. Each paragraph needs a slight re-word along with an adjective/duplication/not req'd sheening. 142.167.73.151 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I had trouble with another 192 earlier today... I will watch. I have a 72.201 that needs rv'ing right now... rotten anons :D 142.167.87.205 (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pain because some of the straight rv's go back to re-direct links so they have to be corrected too. Well.... they don't have to but... since I'm there. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the edit conflict :D 142.167.87.205 (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

reverts

dude, you are the one who is making an edit war. you seem to have an issue with anyone making changes to articles which you edit? show good faith in your fellow editors, it is not your article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, those are your opinions. In popular media they are referred to as the original members. It is not stated they are the original members, it merely notes in the article that they are the most famous lineup and "often" referred to as the original members. Jeez already... I see, it is probably cold there in Canada... :P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk • contribs)

You appear to simply have some need to play edit war on Wikipedia. Sad.

Yes Funeral is it Cold?

Where you are? I would supply our user with the WP:RCU page. I always say when someone wants to make an accusation they might as well go ahead and file a report. At least then it shuts 'em up. What is your temp? We couldn't ice fish today until later on in the afternoon becuase it was too f**kin cold. The kids hauled in some mighty big fish in the 45 minutes that we went out. I am at my cottage for the weekend that's why I am not at 156.34. I told Wiki alf about the cottage last night... he can't understand why I ever go back to the city. I can't either :D . Scarians formatting his machine with... ugh... Vista this eve otherwise our crufter would've been hearing from him. He's all 3RR on it now. 3RRs are an absolute pain in the ass to do. But I will if I have to. 142.167.87.205 (talk) 00:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Prot will do. Did you get a chance to read the Taylor article? 142.167.87.205 (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you both are too cold! That would only make sense to how spiteful you seem to be to others on here. But, by all means, if someone's editing is different than from your little heart desires, play grand Wikipedia edit warrior. How cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Led Zeppelin

Could you remove the screenshot from the LZ article. It's the one in the first section of the article from the "Tout en Scene French TV show". It's a prot and I can't touch it. I asked Fnlayson to remove it but he basically said... nah, nah. nah... you're an anon tough sh*t... and he just moved it. Screenshots, as you know, can't be used anywhere. I explained that to him clearly but he decided to be a dink about it. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 03:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're fast. Fnlayson doesn't know WP:FAIR from his own a**. He had the same problem over on the Lynyrd Skynyrd article a while back. Eventually he got that one right. Not without a lot a prodding though. He's better off sticking to airplanes. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Low pixel quality images of dead people have been slipped in to a number of articles. No screengrabs though and no album covers. Usually stuff that's been printed in a newspaper or some other regular periodical. I have an issue with many of them because the uploader has lied about the "true" source and you can't have them deleted from Wiki until you find the true source to prove the point. There is already enough to do around here. All in due time. Had time to read the Taylor article yet? I may clean another paragraph or 2 before I hit the hay. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 03:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That'd be great. I am down to the fifth/sixth paragraph of the "solo" section. You can keep on truckin.. or copyedit me on what's been done so far (or both ... even better :D ) . It's just trying to make a silk purse out of a sows ear and reverting anything that the 62.X/Strawberry/Tiger sockpuppet tries to do to it. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I finished the solo section... but it should be gone over again. It was the second "Rolling Stones" section that was really bad. It was all Yay Taylor/Boo Mick and Keith. No proper references. THe crufter got in a snit that I removed references. What was actually there were things like "in a 1975 interview Taylor said".... and that was it. Or if it said who the interview was with it didn't give enough info to go and find it to verify. Lots of stuff like that. It's that second section that needs to be "beat up" some more before it can be "remedied". 156.34.219.91 (talk) 04:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also... someone "arena rock'd" the Ted Nugent article. I rv'd once. The original "AR" article had been goofed up back in December. I've corrected it now. I will need to watch it closer I guess. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 05:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

First it was Mick Taylor - now its Lonnie Mack

I am finding peacock praise editors all over. I enjoy reading about early blues-rock guitarists. But when their articles are as puffed up as the Lonnie Mack article it makes me wonder how stuff like that goes by so long without someone catching it. That he is a skilled and influential guitarist is without question. But I haven't read far enough into the article yet to see the stage in his career when he started turning water into wine and walking on water. Celebrity guitarists have all kinds of people editing their pages. It's these forgotten "grinders" like Lonnie Mack and Link Wray and Dick Dale that made hard rock guitar what it is. I was going to read the Paul Kossof article. I don't know if I dare look at it now. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Classic Metal

You told me it was a term. Nobody believes me. See the article and talk page for further info.

142.162.207.230 (talk) 20:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is, but not every metal band (i.e. thrash bands) are "classic metal" - "classic metal" is used to describe Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, etc. Funeral 23:24, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You got it

I rv vandalism every now and then on the Becker article I never take the time to read the rest. I will peak in. Many/Most "shredder" pages are pumped up a little by "shred-head" metal heads who haven't realised yet that... no matter how good these shredders are... they can't hold a candle to most Jazz, Classical and Bluegrass picker. Eric Clapton knows how to shred... he just chooses not to. I will look at Becker and cleanup some of the bubble-gum. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I finished a quick run through for Becker. It will take another pass or two to tighten it up and add some {citation needed} tags to it. Some Bluegrass eh?... Tony Rice is a monster picker. Absolute monster! His idol, Clarence White, played for The Byrds. And before them Norman Blake and Doc Watson. Finger-pickers, not just Bluegrass, blow my mind... check out Tommy Emmanuel. Danny Gatton combined bluegrass picking styles along with rockabilly and jazz to create something I can't quite describe. All of them are influenced by Chet Atkins and Merle Travis. And (old) Chet Atkins once said of (young) Scotty Anderson "I learn something every time I watch him play"... which speaks volumes. Bluegrass shredders aren't just guitarists... Sam Bush, David Grisman, Doyle Lawson, etc all shred mandolins. Bela Fleck is a banjo maestro and Jerry Douglas on dobro slide is one of the few stringed instrument players I don't mind seeing the word virtuoso describing. And then there's Mark O'Connor... who plays violin, guitar, mandolin, banjo, dobro and probably 10 other stringed instruments better then 99% of the so called masters of each individual instrument. I learned way back in High School in the late 70s that if all I listened to was metal... which I still do in abundance... I was never going to learn anything as a musician. And almost 30 years later... I still haven't :D. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you looking?... torrents? hit and miss there. I have "bought" over 2 terabytes of music over the last 5 years using eMule. And the Kentucky Colonels was Clarence White's band. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

eMule never fails me. Mostly European based so all the rips are pretty high quality (usually remasters) I start up 3-4dozen albums before I go to bed.. wake up in the morning... shopping complete. When it comes to music, movies or TV shows... when someone asks me "do you have...?" I tell them it's easier to just give you the short list of what I don't have :D. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

With 'the mule' just sort the servers by file number... dbl click the one the has the most (usually over 100M)... search archives... sort by number of sources.. and "purchase". You begin to learn all the jargon after a while (so you don't get stuck with spanish movies or anything) I've never downloaded a single song in my life. Almost 6000 complete albums and still going (being in a library all day helps too :D... No shortage of music in a library) The mule is nice... no web surfing for anything... it's all right there in one store. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Robots In Disguise

Hi, any particular reason why you've just deleted all the work I just did on Robots In Disguise's page?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themirrorandthelamp (talk • contribs)

Read WP:FAIR, album covers are only allowed to go in the album articles, not band articles, song articles etc. Funeral 23:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand about the images, but I'm not really sure why you've removed the links to two singles and an album? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themirrorandthelamp (talk • contribs) 23:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell!

I demand that you change your edits to The Stooges and if you don't I will rv them when I can. You are going against the armistice which had and has a serious purpose. It doesn't matter than an editor changed it not knowing about the armistice or not agreeing to it. Per WP:CON we editors that agreed to the armistice are supposed to uphold it. Are you calling me an edit warrer? Although I may have edit warred in the past (twice) I am not an edit warrer; I uphold wikipedia's rules and I will remind you to be civil and not make accusations. I realize that no problem=no fix but we also both know that the armistice was there to uphold the genre delimiters at the time of the armistice, otherwise I or others could go around creating mayhem and changing a ton of articles. Respect the armistice, please, as it was put in place to keep the peace and I uphold it (I don't change pages that had commma breaks at the time of the armistice). If you refuse to abide by the rules of the armistice and decide to open the gate to another war I will be forced to report you. Even editers like User:Scarian uphold the armistice and agree that editors that don't should be reported. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert my edits, then break the 3RR (like you'll do on the Rush page soon too), be blocked again. Your choice. And how am I not "uphol[ding] the armistice"? Navnlos, you come complaining to me, because I reverted one of your many completely unneeded edits, yet you and Twsx have been reverting each other back and forth during this armistice-thing. Funeral 00:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not true! I want to keep all the pages the way they were during the armistice (comma break or line break) and Twsx has already shown a complete disregard for the armistice and has been continually getting worse. I do not make unneeded edits! As far as the genre delimiters are concerned I change none of them, unless they have been changed after the armistice. I do not plan on breaking 3RR. As I said I only want to keep the pages the way they were when the armistice was put in to effect. You are going against that as far as the Rush page and The Stooges page are concerned. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to "keep the peace", I wouldn't change anything to do with infobox formatting. User:75Pickup changed the formatting on the Stooges article, he didn't even contribute to the discussion. So I don't see how changing something he did to your WP:POV is trying to "keep the peace". Funeral 00:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ARGH! Because if we just let anyone change what they wanted, as far as genre delimiters are concerned, we would just be opening up that can of worms again and restarting the genre delimiter war!!! I don't get how you don't see that. I mean you say "'If I wanted to "keep the peace', I wouldn't change anything," which make no sense. Aren't police a neccesity in our society to keep the peace? If they said they wouldn't change anything in order to keep the peace, what would result? CHAOS AND WAR!!! I want to prevent that by keeping thing in line! I am not instituting POV because I'm not just looking at it from one side. As I said, I want to keep all the pages the same as when the armistice was made, even the pages that use comma breaks! If we let anyone change these genre delimiters people would start instituing their own POV and start a war. I am not instituting POV because I would change a page that has line break to comma breaks if the change was done after the armistice. Therefore, I am not instituting any sort of POV (unless you count that I have a point of view that everyone should follow the armistice). Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

armistice? I thought it was pretty much cut and dried that if a band had more then 2... then commas... if there was only 2... breaks were OK but if an editor decides he likes commas... then that's OK too. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 75Pickup's edit on December 16th is going to open up a "can of worms". I can only see one person opening that up, y'know maybe it would be best to leave every infobox alone for now? There's no need to go changing every single one to the way it was during the armistice..... Funeral 00:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Smeone cried armistice to try and end Navlos' agenda as opposed to stifling valid editing... like shortening the infobox length by using proper format for labels and associated acts (commas and piped links) along with adding "see section" links into past member fields. 156.34.219.91 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one with an "agenda." And this: "if a band had more then 2... then commas... if there was only 2... breaks were OK but if an editor decides he likes commas... then that's OK too." was never agreed upon. It was agreed by almost all that we would leave pages as they were when the armistice was in effect. And Funeral!!! When you say: "y'know maybe it would be best to leave every infobox alone for now?" DO YOU NOT GET THAT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE DOING WITH THE ARMISTICE...It was put in place so that everyone would leave genre delimiters in infoboxes alone. To this day that is still what we are trying to do. We allow NO ONE to edit the genre delimiters in an infobox and if someone does we revert, whether it is to line breaks or comma breaks! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 03:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Undoing an edit which happened over a month ago without anyone caring isn't helpful. Funeral 16:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

IMHO if anybody in these discussions wants to be taken seriously, you need to start using friendlier language. Using terms like "armistice" and "CHAOS AND WAR!!!" makes everything you say seem incensed and confrontational. I'm not naming names, but this whole discussion reads like dialogue in Metalocalypse. --IllaZilla (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I think if everyone just quietens down and stops complaining about an "armistice" then maybe there wouldn't be so many angry people. I'm sure Libsey and Funners will stop changing the de-limiters immediately if you start being a lot more polite Navnlos and stop changing them too. It seems like another user came along and changed them and Funner's changed them back, is that correct? 'Cause that seems to me like he's carrying out what the "armistice" was, ja? - To be honest, my ethics are telling me to report some people for edit warring and 3RR and maybe even a case of incivility in edit summaries. And you're right Navnlos; I'm not interested. I'm trying to build an encyclopaedia, not argue over punctuation =) - Good bye that is the last Pat wants to hear of this subject Scarian^{Call me Pat} 09:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't recall "changing" any in several weeks? But I make sure I "change them back" if I see them being switched for no reason. And I "edited" a few that had more then a half dozen genres in the list which... is just cosmetics. Two genres split into separate lines looks fine... who bothers changing them?... they aren't worth the bother. It's when there's 3 or more that it starts elongating the box for no reason. And some of the boxes are longer then the articles they're attached to... simply because there are too many useless stubs being created(or saved from extinction). The 'instrument', 'occupation', 'associated acts' and 'labels' are always split by commas to kill the 'length overkill'. It's all about the cosmetics. Simple cosmetics. 156.34.217.154 (talk) 18:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my goodness

Do I see the peacock'd "non-adjective" virtuoso being user as an adjective to describe Bumblefoot in the GnR article? Oh, oh, oh :D . I thought that ugly little word had all but been removed from Wiki.(unless it was a referenced quote like in the Albert Lee/Joe Satriani/etc articles) I was gonna kick it... but, alas the article is a prot. Mark my words though.... I'll remember... I'll remember :D 156.34.219.91 (talk) 04:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Libs. Funeral 16:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Genre misfouliations and inaccuricisities

My observation is that 99% of Wiki editors can't really tell one genre from another. How accute is an edit like this? I wonder if editors who add that link to any band actually know what Jazz fusion is? I see it on lots of "shredder" pages too. I have yet to come across too many "metal" shredders who actually play anything even remotely close to Jazz fusion. Wikipedia is genre impaired. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also.. there is a List of modern deathrock bands AND a List of classic deathrock bands... and my 2 questions are Why? and Wha? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done, done and reverted. Funeral 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

One for your watchlist

Can you eye Roger Fisher(a once-was). An editor cruft cleaned this article up(I read the previous version... it was bad). I stumbled across the page a while after it was cleaned when I caught a 64.4.X IP reverting it to the crud-cruft. Now 1 year later the exact same IP managed to get the article past my eyes and into the cruft zone again. I've reverted and did a little more required cleaning. My guess is that this is either "the guy" or some buddy-buddy or family member or something. Can you watch and rv any shenanigans? 156.34.220.142 (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Funeral 01:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

E-mail

Sent you an e-mail about torrents, Funners. Don't know if you got it or not. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 10:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Problem with Jimi Hendrix

If you scroll down... the entire article has been copy/pasted into the External links section? It's like there's two versions on the go. There is some discussion on the talk page that the contributions of jameselmo are not very good and undesired. He does not "partake" in talk page discussion and consensus so he is ignoring the concerns of others. All his recent edits were undone and some extra cleanup commenced... but he happened along... was insulted and proceeded to re-do his do's. In his hast I fear he may have copy/pasted his own version onto the bottom and my be continuing to work on that instead of the actual "first edition" page. It's a prot so I can't touch it. Can you figure out where the dupe came from. This one may require an rv back to the version prior to jameselmos and then a full prot applied. 156.34.220.142 (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it! Pat is bored and lonely and needs some Jimi... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hammer!!! :D . 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be one of "those" Saturdays

I can just feel it. Weather is poor.... wingnuts are stuck inside and bored. Shenanigans are going to occur. 156.34.220.66 (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Have you put your e-mail into your pref's Funners? It says you don't have a valid one of you've opted out of receiving e-mails...? Scarian^{Call me Pat} 15:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

haha sorry

I put that on there as a joke, I knew it was vandalism but me and the few people I showed it to thought it was pretty funny :)

Also, it sure did take a while before someone took it down.--ZacLOL (talk) 18:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Concession

Alright I wanna resolve this bullshit and despite what you think, I only want to keep the peace. Therefore, since your argument was that no one changed the edit on The Stooges page for a month or something, I'll let the page stay as a comma break page. However, on that same token people who want comma breaks must also agree to let pages stay as line breaks if they've been that way for a while (at least a week or so) without being changed. In this vein, since no one has changed the Megadeth page back to comma breaks in more than a week it will also stay as line breaks now. Agreed? I'm sure. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What the hell! IP Man is edit warring, not me! And you can't say this: "rv, previous formatting was fine" as an edit summary because I was the one reverting IP Man since the previous version that's been used for months was fine! What do you not get?? Rush has had line breaks for months without a single person complaining! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You've reverted him four times in the last couple of days, and you've already gone past the 3RR. That's edit warring. Funeral 22:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

HA! I've only reverted him four time because he's reverted me five times! He started it not me! The page was fine. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You -

- beautiful person: [2] Scarian^{Call me Pat} 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

:-) You're welcome. Funeral 21:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, and again! You certainly are a sharp fellow! Dankey ;-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem.... again :-D Funeral 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Different topic - it's not worth an e-mail though... but I will be pretty obscure so as not to attract attention... "I like your sand castle, when it's built, which it almost looks like it is, are you going to post it somewhere?" - Damn I should be a professional riddle writer :-D Scarian^{Call me Pat} 23:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for that, hit the wrong user name. Rgoodermote  23:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries :-) Funeral 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you and good night. Rgoodermote  23:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

User:209.120.161.43

Has been vadalizing again. Noticed you put a block warning on his talk page. Check the histories on the Some Girls and Rolled Gold pages for my reverts. Stan weller (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're around

The IP sock of blocked editor Lumpx is back. Typical POV genre warrior. He is 77.99.129.74 (talk · contribs). Next time you're around could you keep him in check. 156.34.213.161 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll keep an eye on him. Funeral 20:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)