Talk:Fleshcrawl

Article content

The article is in need of cleanup. Do not remove the tags until the things tagged wrong are corrected. The article cites no sources whatsoever and external links don't count. The biography section reads poorly and it needs to be cut into sections for easier reading. I'll be keeping an eye on this article.--Leon Sword 01:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

look, twat. i cleaned it up once. some schmuck just went and stuck the damn tags right back on. as far as the references, all of the information on there comes from the band's webpage. i would have cited it if i knew how. but i don't, so either you do it for me, or quit your fucking bitching. and as for the biography section "reading poorly" ... if you weren't too busy hunting down typos and trying to critique a perfectly fine article, maybe you would have understood it. but then again, i guess it might be too much to ask that everyone around here stop walking on their knuckles... evolution is a slow process. fact is, before i posted the damn thing, there wasn't shit for an article on the band... which is a shame, they're a great band. thing is: they're not very well known. so... pretty much, if i don't do it, no one will. what is there is what you get. live with it, or redo it your-fucking-self.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.93.122 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, I have been keeping an eye on the article and I have reviewed all your edits and you didn't really clean it up, you just kept removing the cleanup tags without actually fixing much. The reason why I haven't fixed the article myself is because I don't know much about the band so generally that's why cleanup tags are used, so that someone who knows the band well will fix the article without messing it up. I'm not trying to bring down this article or your efforts, I'm a big melodic death metal fan and I would like to see all the melodic death metal band's articles reach at least a B status. If you want me to cite sources for you, then just put a link to the site and I'll cite it correctly or if you want to learn how to do it yourself see WP:CITE or WP:FOOT. I'll eventually get around to copyediting this article, It's just hard because right now I'm working on more than a 100 other articles at once, plus I go to college, relax dude. --Leon Sword 21:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm still learning the ropes... so, i tell you what... you take out all the fucking tags, and i'll see to it that it gets the proper attention it needs. i added the citation (even though there's essentially no reason at all... ALL of the information there is from their web page) a few minutes ago, and im going to go through and find grammar errors and such probably tomorrow.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.93.122 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

I went ahead and re-wrote, cleaned up, organized, and formatted the entire article. Please take a look and compare my version with the previous version which you said was perfectly fine, I think you'll be surprised. The article was full of grammar and spelling errors, also the main body was just one long essay and contained too much praise which is not allowed in Wikipedia. Oh and theres plenty of reasons why citations are needed in a Wikipedia article. Because anyone can edit a Wikipedia article any information can be added whether true or not. Citations are proof that we are not just making up the information that is on the article. --Leon Sword 00:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

alright, fair enough.... it does look better. but you need to keep in mind that i'm, not a journalist or anything, and no body else was putting any information down for them. I added a little more current information about their next release and new bassist (and cited the articles) on the bottom, and cited the band's webpage, so you can take off the last tag if you like. i'm getting the hang of this shit, so bear with me, else you're gonna find me a real asshole.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.172.93.122 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

added style section... needs an additional citation - i'm looking for it presently. may need a more experienced editor to look over it, maybe make some changes. i personally think it looks fine, but i've been wrong before. AeturnalNarcosis 14.Aug.2007

what the shit? i spent hours making the chart of their albums for the discography and some twat took it out? that's bullshit. i'm going to remake it... NO ONE TOUCH IT!!! AeturnalNarcosis 2.Nov (by the way, that's a signature)

now, with all the work i've put into it, with LeonSword's help, would anyone agree that is it better than a "start class" page? AeturnalNarcosis 20:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop changing things without discussing it here first. I spent alot of time and effort making it the way it is; it's perfect, please don't change it. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. You don't own an article. Corvus cornix_talk 03:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I do believe i never said i "owned it" ... i do believe, in fact, you're trying to, as they say, 'put words in my mouth.' ...and as for the fair use, give me some time, i'm working on them. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also read WP:CIVIL, calling names is not accepted. Also read WP:FUR. Fair use may be claimed for album covers when used in an article about the album, but not in an article about the band. Corvus cornix_talk 03:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you lost me. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use can be claimed for an album cover only for an article about the album. You cannot use an album cover image on an album about the band. Corvus cornix_talk 03:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Jesus, how simple are you? that section of the article IS about their albums. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will admonish you about being civil once more. I will also repeat that you may not use the album covers on the band page. The fair use rationales for the album covers are only listed for the album articles. There is no fair use rationale on the album covers' image pages for the article about the band. Your use of them in this article is therefore a copyright violation. Corvus cornix_talk 03:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that says anything about that. and i have fixed each image.... read the source for the "non-free rationale box" on each of the covers' image pages... i have included their main entry as articles that contain the images.

Now, if you like, i can contact the band (i am in e-mail contact with 2 of their members, Bastian Herzog and Oli Grbvac, on an infrequent basis) and see what they think about me using their album covers to illustrate the chronology of their recordings in a more elaborate, well-fashioned method than text. by the way, they sent me the digipack of their latest release for my good work and effort on their wikipedia page.

on an unrelated topic... have you ever even listened to this band, or do you just randomly ruin great wikipedia articles for the sadistic pleasure that comes from destroying another man's work? AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Aeturnal, I'll personally give you a warning right here and repeat it on your talk page. Another uncivil comment like that and you will be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil? howso?

...it seems like a legitimate question to me; this person has repeatedly altered the page without discussing the changes whatsoever with the community, and has added no constructive input at all, but rather has only deflated what was once a great wikipedia article on which someone (i.e., me) spent alot of time and effort. it's complete and utter b.s., to speak frankly. so why don't you please either do something about this, or at least explain to me how my previous post was "uncivil."

and while we're at it... what's with this "vandalism" thing? why would i vandalise something i spent so much time to create? doesn't it seem more appropriate to accuse this other 'editor' of vandalism for taking out an intergral part of the page?--AeturnalNarcosis

this is ridiculous... cornus is essentially getting away with vandalising this page and i am getting blamed? the chronology of their albums requires album cover images because the images represent the music on each release, and it shows the progression of their style in an artistic way. but then again, you would have to actually have heard their music to realise and understand such a concept. but why speculate... i say we debate it openly. here. any editor who comes across this page, please leave your two cents worth; do you think the album cover art should be shown in their release chronology, or should it be plain text? i.e., should cornus be allowed to continually degrade and vandalise this page, or should it be restored?

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I told you on your user page, assume good faith. If continue to call everyone else's edits vandalism, you won't last long here. Look, Aeturna, I've given you the relevant policy, and you now got the same response at WP:MCQ. Follow the policy at this point. If you start inserting the images again, it should be treated as edit warring. If you really want to drag this out, there's still dispute resolution or better yet, argue for a change in the policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

would you people please, for the love of whatever deities you may pray to, stop removing shit without discussing it first? is that too much to ask? ...was the article discussion page a waste of time? the reason i undid the previous editor's changes is this: i don't feel any rules are being violated by the german flag icon or the band's logo, the latter of which is used as opposed to a band photo because no free-media photo exists and the one i uploaded was removed by some prick. thus, the flag icon and band logo stay.AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

No one is required to discuss every single edit. See WP:BOLD and WP:OWN. If there is a need to discuss, mention it on the user's talk page. Also, if the manual of style has a change in policy, it needs to be followed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this article the arena for a good ol' fashioned, down-home, texas-style douche off or what? seems like every prick with an anal phallus implant has to degrade this article. this isn't some out-dated revision of world book -- we don't have to limit the articles to save space in the book. you schmucks have taken every other image off from this article, the least you can do is leave the logo. AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Justify Any Changes Here

JUSTIFICATION FOR COVER IMAGE:

1. what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

2. the album is important in the band's history because it marked change in style. disagree? buy or download Bloodred Massacre and compare it to ABRFTS.

3. it shows the typical artwork used by the band.

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 15:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

JUSTIFICATION FOR LOGO

1. what's good for the goose is good for the gander

2. The logo is meant to appear as though it has been carved in flesh

3. flesh-related subjects are common in their lyrics (ex. "Nothing but Flesh Remains" from Structures of Death, "Carved in Flesh" from Soulskinner, etc.)

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

JUSTIFICATION FOR BAND IMAGE

1. what's good for the goose is good for the gander

2. I have direct permission from the band (Oliver Gbravac in particular) [1] (post 124)

AeturnalNarcosis (talk) 31:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fleshcrawl. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235456/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71018 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71018
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930235456/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71018 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=71018

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)