Mtlv0

Re: Watershed (Opeth album)

Hi. Just thought I'd suggest that you check out Template:Track listing. It says: "Avoid redundancy, if all or most songs on a record were written by the same person(s), consider using the all_writing option and note fields for exceptions." This is why I reverted all the edit, as all but one song is written by Akerfeldt. As for keeping the note about "The Louts Eater", that's the whole point of the "note" field: to add notes about tracks, instead of having a separate "Note" heading, with only one trivial (and unsourced to boot) piece of information. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:02, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure what you were getting at there with your post to my talk page (punctuation and sentences would help), but since most of the songs on the album were written by the same person, I used the all_writing option, and the note field to mention exceptions (which is exactly what Template:Track listing says to do). No one should be confused by that layout, especially since at the top it says "except where noted" (and it is then noted for the song "Porcelain Heart"). As for someone thinking the title is "The Lotus Eater (Misspelled as ...)", I doubt anyone would be unable to figure out that this is not part of the song title. There's no good reason to put a note below the track listing when there is a perfectly good note field to use. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, glad I was able to understand. Feel free to bring up your issue with the writing credits at Template talk:Track listing. If you make a persuasive argument there, you may be able to get that changed. Until the template usage is changed, however, the track listing should be used as described. Regarding the note issue, I'm well aware that many songs use the note field to put bracketed titles (I've done exactly this at times). That doesn't mean we can't use the note field for notes. Again, there's no point in having a note about a song not in the note field. And as I said before, this is an unsourced, trivial piece of information, that I question even having in the article. It's hardly notable enough to have its own section in the article (whether subsection or full section). I figure it's not hurting anyone having that info in the article, though, but it really doesn't need more prominence than a small note in the track listing. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 01:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide me with some examples of good music articles that show notes under the track listing? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:04, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. Can you find me a Good Article music article showing these? Frankly, that Ghost Reveries article doesn't look all that great to me. Checking through the history, there were better versions of that article in the past. I'll agree that the guitar thing can get kinda dicey, it does depend on what the credits say (I don't own this album physically, so I can't say either way). I'll take a look at that Production section in a bit. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

[undent]Done. I have removed it completely, as it is unsourced and trivial. It should not be re-added unless given a source, and should be added somewhere in the text of the article, not as a note (either within or outside of the Track listing template). Also, the reason I removed the reviews from the infobox is because they no longer belong there. Template:Infobox album says they should be moved to a "Reception" section in the article, and the reviews expanded into prose. I see Backtable has done this to a point (generally they should be expanded into prose, but the Professional Ratings template will do for now). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Metallica (album) doesn't look that good, as again it's not a page with a long list or several lists. Of course, it's not even a Good Article, so comparing it to that isn't all that useful. If it's the same as the Italian edition, maybe a quick mention next to the other releases listed would be in order (The Italian release has the same tracks as the special edition). Trower and Fredriksson are both listed in the note, saying each track is a cover of their respective songs. I don't see the point in having the writers column here, there's barely any different writing credits throughout the tracklist, so keeping it as is follows Template:Track listing. Since we don't have the Total Length attribute filled out in the track listing, I don't see the relevance. The infobox provides a length for the original release. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

As for my input on the issue, I personally don't see why there needs to be a track listing space for the Italian iTunes edition; it is awfully specific, as opposed to just "iTunes edition" or even "Italian edition". The special edition set does include the seven tracks of the standard edition, so it is still combined in that sense. However, I'm not sure what you mean by "technically it is the first release", since this is Opeth's ninth studio album generally. Do you mean that it is the first Italian iTunes release of Opeth, or do you mean something else. Thank you for your interest. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 21:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a good point. I see what you're saying by pointing out that reference four leads to the Italian iTunes page for the special edition of Watershed. However, I still wouldn't feel that a track listing for the Italian iTunes edition is needed, since that page specifies that it is indeed the special edition. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 18:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

About my reversion, maybe it wasn't entirely accurate of me to say that not all singles were in the track listing area. Two of the three singles are in the standard track listing, while the other one, "Mellotron Heart", is not in the standard track listing, yet is written about below the tracks. Just because the tracks are linked in that area does not mean that they are singles, though; by that logic, the Robin Trower cover of "Bridge of Sighs" would possibly be a single. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 05:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

General Wikipedia editing policies

I'll start a new section for this. I highly recommend that you check out the following policies regarding editing Wikipedia. I just undid a bunch of your edits at Blackwater Park, as they were generally not good edits. Some specific examples: the infobox is intended to be a summary of important points of an album. This includes production credits. This information should also appear later in the article, generally in a Personnel section. Linking to freecovers.net is not acceptable. First, album credits can be included without an explicit source. Second, linking to non-free content in a situation like this is not a good idea. For some reason you removed applicable wikilinks from personnel credits (for example, [[Singer|vocals]], [[Electric guitar|guitar]], [[acoustic guitar]] from Mikael Akerfeldt). These links are useful, and in fact encouraged. I restored the "all_writing" attribute of the Track listing template, as that is its purpose. The information you gave was too much for that section; that information belongs in the Personnel section.

Here are some important policies I highly recommend you read prior to and when editing Wikipedia articles:
Template:Infobox album
WP:PRIMARY
WP:ALBUM
WP:MOS (music)
Template:Track listing

Also check out WP:WELCOME. It has many handy tips and good information for new editors, and I highly recommend that you check it out. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Blackwater Park

I did reply to your Watershed question. I asked "Can you provide me with some examples of good music articles that show notes under the track listing?". It's up above this post right now.

WP:COPYLINK says "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". A scan like that is generally in violation of copyright. Sorry, I missed listing that policy.

I agree with you about the Production credits mentioning names too much. You could rearrange that section so that it says Opeth - engineering, mixing, production (etc) for each person listed (so that it matches the format of the Personnel listed above). As for the guitar thing, nothing wrong with being specific. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:16, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I never got around to matching the format of the Production section with the Musicians sections (name dash contributions), if you want to give that a try, go ahead, but don't remove any info or wikilinks, just rearrange the format. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

My Arms, Your Hearse

So, I undid your edit at My Arms, Your Hearse. Instead of wasting my time typing out a whole bunch of explanations yet again, I'll let you go read those policies I linked for you and figure out why. After you've done that, feel free to ask me about anything you're still unsure about. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:38, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, TKO Capone is not notable. Removed. The Opeth.com reference given for the release year only stated that the album was recorded in 1997, not released. Discogs is not considered a reliable source, as it can be edited by anyone without any editorial oversight. In other words, they don't have a staff, and they don't have editors checking that information added is correct. This page just doesn't seem long enough to need a whole bunch of headings, especially when you had a section that contained only one sentence. There is enough info on the concept (however unsourced) that it can warrant its own section.

Well, both allmusic and amazon say Aug 18, 1998, as does several other sites (a quick Google search will find several other sources giving this date). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can find a more reliable source than the band's own webpage or discogs, saying it was released in 1997, then by all means add it. Make sure it complies with WP:reliable sources first. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's at the point where the lead should be shortened and other material moved into the main body of the article. The lead should mention things like the release date, labels, and probably the info on the new members. At a glance I'd say a couple sections are warranted, one about the release history and one about the musical style (as well as the already-present Concept section). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

"Note"

Do you mean the "Extra" column? It's for putting additional info in that might be relevant, such as Remixer (see Krieg (album)), then listing who remixed a track. The only "Note" field in the Track Listing Template is the one that adds a small note in brackets next to the title. Whoever created that "Note" column did a poor job of it, because it looks like crap. Look, if it's such a big deal to not have that piece of unsourced trivia in the track listing for Watershed (Opeth album), then we can completely delete it from the article, as it really doesn't belong in the article at all. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

There is NO NOTE COLUMN in the track listing template. Again, please READ Template:Track listing. The only "note" function is the one that adds a small note of text next to the song title. There is no Wikipedia policy saying "If you have notes, create a "Note" heading under the "Extra" column". For things that are relevant to a track, either they should be put in the ACTUAL "Note" field, or put in prose in the article itself. They should not be added as some separate "Notes" section, these sorts of sections are discouraged at WP:TRIVIA (the first line says "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information"). It's not that I "despise" it, it's that it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article, as no policy says to do this (if I'm wrong, please link me to the appropriate policy). As for that specific note, if I remove it, I'll be completely deleting it, as it is unsourced, and non-notable. If you can find a source showing how it IS notable, post it on Talk:Watershed (Opeth album) and we can see about including it. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information". Putting a list of notes under the track listing would be a list of miscellaneous information. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

From Template:Track listing, Extra_column section: "Use sparingly, in order to keep the overall column count to a minimum and if the respective type of date is not available for most tracks consider using the note fields instead.". MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Rusted Angel

I don't see the point in doing that. Template:Track listing says that the note field is "Useful for original titles in other languages/scripts (e.g., kanji) or to denote bonus tracks only included in certain editions" (emphasis mine). Those songs are a part of the track listing for at least one version of the album; they aren't part of, say, a second disc. I'd say leave them, and fix Morningrise as well. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any policy that says to separate bonus tracks (if you can find one, please provide a link). They're still part of the track listing, and the note tells readers that only specific releases have this bonus track. In cases with multiple sets of bonus tracks, sometimes you might have a second track listing template, if there's a good reason for it. Alien (album) has multiple editions, and the bonus tracks are simply listed underneath. Again, good in this specific case, but not in all cases. If you really think there's a good reason to split off track listings, then instead of just making the edit, bring it up on the article's talk page first. Maybe other editors will agree with you. Maybe not, and you can avoid an edit war. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the incident we fixed by removing the unsourced trivia. Look, unless you find policy stating that bonus tracks should be separated, then they probably shouldn't be (and the existing policy seems to indicate they shouldn't). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

For reference, this is because you were unblocked while you used M4pnt with the promise to only use one account, and yet you seem to have gone back to your old behavior. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I 4got the password of the old account and I didn't know how to retrieve it back that's allMtlv0 (talk) 00:50, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Mtlv0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I 4got the password of the old account and I didn't know how to retrieve it back that's allMtlv0 (talk) 00:54, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Since you have email enabled on this account and would be able to recover your password, I'll assume good faith and unblock. Bear in mind that if you return to your previous pattern of abandoning accounts as warnings accumulate, future requests will probably not be accepted. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The break in contributions does seem to support that claim, although the "Email new password" button on the login screen is rather conspicuous. Is there some reason you didn't publicly state the connection between your accounts? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Note that you would have to fill in a mail adress for your account for that button to work. Since its not required during signup (Or at least it wasn't when my own account was made), its quite possible an account will remain permanently locked. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 08:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

If you go to User_talk:Motaros - there is no "e-mail this user" link, so it appears that he never supplied an e-mail address for that account.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The user seems to already have moved on to User:C0un+5. Sigh... Nymf _hideliho! 08:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Nymf _hideliho! 07:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked again

Once again you are indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Despite your repeated promises not to sock, you still insist on doing it - and for that, you are blocked. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)