Wolfinruins

Pages That I Have Focused On...

• Voices (band)
• Book Burner
• Portals to Canaan
• Triumph and Power
• Terrestrials (album)
• Das Seelenbrechen
• Digital Resistance
• Colored Sands
• Pain Necessary to Know
• Hex; Or Printing in the Infernal Method
• Earth (American band)
• Eagle Twin
• Impaled Nazarene
• Darkness in a Different Light
• III: The Rommel Chronicles
• On Divine Winds
• The Guessing Game
• The Last Spire
• Inquisition (metal band)
• In Torment in Hell
• In the Minds of Evil
• The Stench of Redemption
• Honeys (album)
• Vermis (album)
• Blood Revolt
• Nations To Flames
• Childhood's End (album)
• Necrocracy
• Construct (album)
• As the Valley of Death Becomes Us, Our Silver Memories Fade
• The Epigenesis
• Skydancer
• Legend (Witchcraft album)
• Chelsea Light Moving
• Eremita
• After (Ihsahn album)
• The Adversary (album)
• Weapon (band)
• Honor Found in Decay
• Vexovoid
• Kingdom of Conspiracy
• Κατά τον δαίμονα εαυτού
• NYC Ghosts & Flowers
• Pelagial
• Pain of Salvation
• All Guts, No Glory
• Anatomy Is Destiny
• Black Masses
• The Dear Hunter
• Earth Rocker
• A Pleasant Shade of Gray
• Enemies of Reality

neurosis

good job with the honor found in decay article! been meaning to add to the main band article as it's pathetically small.

Referring to reviews

Hi. When referring to what reviewers have said, please attribute the quote to the reviewer, not just to the review site/publication. For example, "John Doe of Music Reviews said, ...". I've cleaned up your edits at Construct (album). Thanks. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Date formatting

Please ensure when adding dates to articles (such as you did at The Stench of Redemption and In the Minds of Evil) that you follow the established date format for the article. In these cases, these are articles about American subjects (Deicide albums), and as such follow American date formatting. This is Month Day, Year (ie. December 24, 2013, not 24 December 2013). Thank you. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Self-published source by Scaruffi

Thanks for your recent edits. When you edit other Scaruffi's reviews, feel free to add a summary like this one with a link proving the consensus for other contributors:

" rv wp:self published source by Scaruffi per wp:consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews "

Woovee (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your edits over Megadeth's albums, put please don't remove his reviews if the number of other reviews in the article is deficient. Keep in mind that someone has put great effort in improving those articles. Thank you for the understanding.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 18:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The Scaruffi reviews are being removed not because the quantity is deficient, but in accordance with WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and WP:RELIABLE. Consensus has been established that Scaruffi does not meet those criteria[1] - ergo it does not meet the requirements to be considered a professional critical source and should be excluded. The (presumed) absence of other professional critical sources does not, as far as I am aware, nullify the above policy guidelines. If that were the case, I could find any album article with less than 10 reviews and pull any review from any substandard source (e.g. self-published blog) and add it to the article; this goes against every convention that I have seen on Wikipedia. If I am mistaken, please advise. If I am not, please revert back to my edit. Wolfinruins (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

The only two albums I do not support removing Scaruffi are Peace Sells... but Who's Buying? and So Far, So Good... So What!. Regarding Peace Sells, Scaruffi is one of few critics who gave the album a contemporary review, and if you look closer, his interpretation is almost half of the section. As for the second album, I believe his quote is intriguing and should stay. I don't object removing him from the rest of the Megadeth albums.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm not bent on removing it, although it does depart from the above guidelines. I'll try to find some alternative sources that meet the above guidelines and fulfill your analysis. Wolfinruins (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

• The consensus reached on January 2014 is clear https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums#Piero_Scaruffi_-_Final_Verdict_on_using_him_as_a_source_in_reviews : Scaruffi's reviews are wp:self-published sources and don't respond to our wiki guidelines. They are not wp:reliable. Consequently, all his reviews are going to be removed in the next weeks by several contributors. If someone didn't apply this decision and put back Scaruffi's reviews on articles, an administrator would be contacted promptly. A first warning message would be posted on the talk of the contributor like it was already the case for this person here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soul_Crusher#Verdict_is_in_-_he.27s_unusablehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Soul_Crusher#Piero_Scaruffi_Verdict Woovee (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)