User talk:Torchiest/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Welcome!

Hello, Torchiest, 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! Mushroom (Talk) 23:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Spore

Yeah. I meant to leave a note but I forgot but all is good :) --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Help Us Save Us Take Us Away

Hey, I left a message on the Talk:Help Us—Save Us—Take Us Away about the moves and changes you made. Have a look and see what you think. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

KMFDM Page

Hey, just wanted to say thanks for doing all that extra work on the KMFDM page adding citations. I was planning on doing that myself, eventually, but I mainly wanted to start expanding the history of the band. Anyway, thanks again.206.180.38.20 (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. The page still needs a lot of work though. Torchiest (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Right Round

Hi! I wasn't sure whether you wanted a second opinion on the entire article or just the critical review in the lead part. I left my thoughts on the later on the GAR, but let me know on my talk page if you'd like me to add more comments. liquidluck✽talk 00:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello Torchiest, I have replied to the GAR. And you are doing just fine. The lead seems appropriate to me, rather a little piece is actually missing. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 04:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

GA

I noticed! Thanks for reviewing my first good article! :) –Chase (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Xtort

The article Xtort you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Xtort for things which need to be addressed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Warpig

Hello. I think I'm going to remove the article from the nomination list. I doubt me or any other editor is going to find much else on the group and I have to clue where to find images of the band that if used wouldn't cause copy right issues. Well have a good one. RG (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I'll close the review and remove it from the list. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. RG (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Industrial articles needing attention

I have nominated Category:Industrial articles needing attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the debate over there. Since the issue seems to be about syntax partially, I am starting to dig through policy. The Maintenance Page might have some useful information. I'll dig through it and see if I can find anything on the subject. I'm not sure how much BrownHairedGirl will help us in that respect. They seem content on seeing the page deleted. Xe7al (talk) 22:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I corrected the problems it had from me using it incorrectly at first, but if you could post a comment over there in support of keeping it, and mention that the project is becoming active again, that would really help. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I still have the edit window open for that very task. Sounds good! Xe7al (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Good news! The CfD was withdrawn. Xe7al (talk) 01:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Woohoo! Thanks for commenting on it. I think you put it over the top. Now we can get down to business. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: WP:Industrial

Hey, not too sure that I'm all that interested (to be honest, I'm not really sure what all is involved with a project...I was part of WP:Metal for a while, and they seemed to do very little). For the most part I just watch bands I like and their associated albums (in this case KMFDM, Skold, MDFMK, Ministry, and Godflesh), and do what I can when I can. Thanks for the invite though! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Industrial

Thanks for stirring up the group and working on some stuff. BTW, I was really liking the change to the member tag. Xe7al (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Yeah, I thought it was WAY too red, and gray is more of an industrial "color" anyway. And right back at you on all your work. I like all the clean-up you've done on the project pages. I'm on the look out for other editors that aren't members of the project but are active on industrial pages. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to do the same. It's a shame our breed is so rare. Xe7al (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WP Industrial Logo

I can't say I'm really for or against the new logo. It's almost hard to read on the templates. But I do like that it looks a bit more professional. I wonder if transparency with border color on the letters would help. It just needs a little more pop I think. Nice work on it though! Xe7al (talk) 15:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I would be glad to help. I'm always playing around with GIMP and Photoshop anyway. Xe7al (talk) 15:53, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I just added transparency around version three of the logos. It definitely makes it look much better. I guess I couldn't see past the white square. Later on, I may look at any coloration that can be done that doesn't detract from the over all look. Either way, it has definitely grown on me. Xe7al (talk) 05:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:IndustrialGears.png

Thank you for uploading File:IndustrialGears.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 19:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Corrosion

Haha! That's some good timing! Either way, I have it all setup and with the album cover. I'll be adding it to the FLA template since it's an LP and not an EP as all the links say. That's going to be a headache to clean up. Xe7al (talk) 04:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going for a good start for a stub all at once. ...and I agree. Those pages are definitely a mess. It's coming along though. Xe7al (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Corroded Disorder

Nice work on Corroded Disorder. We'll have that discography together in no time. I'm starting to tackle getting the chronology right. I have worked my way up to Gashed Senses & Crossfire by going album by album. I think I'll go fix up the discography page for my last edit of the night. Keep up the good work! Xe7al (talk) 07:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked at that history. That was really harsh. Did you see that guy's contributions? He spends his time deleting. I should suggest for him to join the rescue squad. Xe7al (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hard GAN

Thanks! & Just to let you know, i've made just a few tweaks to it just now, in case you have gotten far. Candyo32 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, i've fixed things on the article, and even expanded the Background with a Tricky interview & the Critical reception. Candyo32 (talk) 01:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I think everything should be set now. Candyo32 (talk) 03:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if the Czech chart link doesn't work, just go ahead and remove it i guess. Candyo32 (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help! Candyo32 (talk) 13:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add sources that do not state what they are supposed to back up

Citations are supposed to be used to source statements that appear in all Wikipedia pages. If we add comments that are not sourced, and sources that do not back up the text, we are breaking Wikipedia's rules, as you do when you undo my edits and claim a fictional consensus that doesn't exist. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC))

Obviously no one wants to add sources that don't say what they are claimed to say. The debate is over what they say. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 00:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see much discussion going on. Two sources are blogs (including a negative review of a Hed PE album); the rest do not actually state explicitly that the two bands perform nu metal. (Sugar Bear (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

POV

Do not make baseless accusations of POV pushing in a dispute. (Sugar Bear (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC))

Your GA nomination of KMFDM

The article KMFDM you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:KMFDM for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dispute

I am not "making up additional rules". Everything I have stated goes by our guidelines. These two bands are not founded enough to appear on this list and should be removed. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

• Have you ever heard of research? It makes things easier when issues are disputed. As far as Rolling Stone goes, musicians have talked about how much it sucks for years. Frank Zappa's songs referred to RS in derogatorily. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC))
  • I don't trust them as a source of music genres. (Sugar Bear (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC))

List of nu metal bands

You're right. At this point, there is really no need to continue in the arguing. Enjoy the weekend. RG (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Citation Errors

Just a heads up, I caught some errors in your citation code for the Front Line Assembly article. Instead of using < ref name="whatever" >, you placed it as < ref= name="whatever" >. For all I know, it may have been a copy and pasted typo. But just in case, I thought I'd bring it to your attention. Here's the actual error. Either way, I fixed it up for you.

BTW, sorry I haven't been terribly active lately. I've been fighting some illness for a while. But I've been noticing that you've been making some really great progress. Keep it up! Xe7al (talk) 01:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I kept noticing that Mythmaker was getting edited like crazy. It has come a long way over the last two weeks. I remember it was in a pretty rough state back when I added a reflist to it. I was also pleased to see KMFDM reached GA status. Either way, I hope to be healthy again within the next week. Xe7al (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Industrial music

Greetings. I think that some of the article's text in other sections would be worth including in the lead instead, such as the post-industrial music section. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Post-industrial music

Your GA nomination for the above article is noted. However, you have not placed a nomination template on the article's talk page. Please do this as soon as possible. Thanks. -- S Masters (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Skinny Puppy

The article Skinny Puppy you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Skinny Puppy for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. –MuZemike 23:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your comment at Talk:Skinny Puppy I don't really think I can help. I believe you need more advanced help which unfortunately I don't yet have. Also, Industrial music is not my forté. I have been aware of the Skinny Puppy since its inception (a friend was in to them) and I have a few industrial albums. However, my thing is indie rock and a lesser degree alt-rock.
Argolin (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

GAN backlog elimination drive - 1 week to go

First off, on behalf of myself and my co-coordinator Wizardman, I would like to thank you for the efforts that you have made so far in this GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a success, and that is thanks to you. See this Signpost article about what this drive has achieved so far. We're currently heading into the final week of the drive. At this time, if you have any GANs on review or on hold, you should be finishing off those reviews. Right now, we have more GANs on review or on hold than we do unreviewed. If you're going to start a GA review, please do so now so you can complete it by the end of the month and so that the nominator has a full 7-day window to address any concerns. See you at the finish!

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 16:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Second Opinion

I need a second opinion on Lauren Ebsary. Looks good to me, but if I pass it without changes right before the elimination drive ends, someone's going to complain. So I thought I'd get a second opinion...up for it? ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 00:55, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Giving it a quick once over, it looks thoroughly done, well referenced, and without any problems. Of course, I know nothing of cricket, and can't give anything approaching an expert opinion one whether it's giving a proper treatment of all aspects of a player of that game. I'd ask Jezhotwells for his opinion. He does more GA reviews than anyone, and lives in England, so I'm sure he's familiar with the game. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 03:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Industrial changes

Changes to the notice

First, I made a few changes to our notice that marks articles. I enabled the extended class listing and created category pages for those new classes. They're mostly for our use. It will make it easier for us to keep track of templates, images, etc. BTW, it takes some time for the table and worklist to update to reflect these changes. So don't go nuts like I did trying to figure out why stuff labeled "Template" doesn't show up right away in the proper location.

Layout changes

While working on the changes to the notice, I was noticing that a lot of the documentation mentioned to look at how Wikiproject Military history used classes and categories. I saw how they organized their project page (along with some other groups) and liked the format. Some of it could really clean up our layout and make it easier to organize our efforts. I'm still tweaking what exactly should be added. That's why the tabs are changing still. But if you have some good ideas, throw them in.

So far, I know we'll have the Main Page of course (introduction to what we do), a resource page (storage of the templates for our project, links to resources, etc), tasks/update page (for our To-Do list and updates on project changes like the ones I've been doing), assessment (already present, but I'll probably try adding more helpful information), and a review page for article nominations like we've had. This is just what I have so far so once again, feel free to share your ideas. Xe7al (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's a link to where I'll be doing major tinkering with the layout. User:Xe7al/Industrial main page Xe7al (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I like the way it looks now; seems a lot more professional and clean looking. I'll definitely look over all the changes and see if I have any ideas, but nice work so far. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The resource page will need some work for sure. A few things from the main page's talk would work nicely in that section.

I have to agree that it does look a whole lot more professional in it's current form. I always thought the old layout was an eyesore. Hopefully, after enough tweaking, it will be much easier to use. Xe7al (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Genesis creation

In case you miss it in the flurry of postings on the article talk page, I thought I'd let you know that I answered your question about "who considers" and "what do they consider". Ἀλήθεια 20:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the April 2010 GAN backlog elimination drive

GAN backlog elimination drives chart up to 1 May On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, I'd like to especially thank you for your efforts over this past month's GAN backlog elimination drive. It has been nothing short of a complete success, which hopefully results in more expedient good article reviews, increasing users' confidence in the good article nomination processes. Even if you made just a small contribution, it still helped contribute to the success of this drive. Here is what we have accomplished this last month in this drive. 661 total nominations were reviewed. 541 of them passed (~81.8%), 97 (~14.7%) failed, and 23 (~3.5%) ended on hold. The WP:GAN page started at 110,126 bytes length on 1 April and ended at 43,387 bytes length at the end of 30 April (a 66,739 byte reduction in the page, about 60.6% less). Excluding extremes, the longest wait for someone's GAN to be review was about 11.5 weeks at the beginning. (I mistook the figure when I reported to the Signpost that it was 13.) At the end, with the exception of one that was relisted, the longest wait is now at 10 days. 63 different users participated, each having completed at least one GAN, with others also having helped out behind-the-scenes in making the drive a success. The drive started with 463 GA nominations remaining and 388 unreviewed. At the end of the month, we ended with 89 remaining (374 or about 80.8% less) and 47 unreviewed (341 or about 87.9% less). For those who have accomplished certain objectives in the drive, awards will be coming shortly. Again, thank you for your help in the drive, and I hope you continue to help review GA nominations and overall improve the quality of articles here on Wikipedia.

–MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant Idea

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		What a Good Idea. "Collapsing our articles" Here. What a page saver this is going too be ! THANX ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 17:13, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! My first barnstar! Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• You are duly Welcome, I pretty sure it's the first one I've given ! Mlpearc MESSAGE 18:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)