Talk:Death (metal band): Difference between revisions

Biography: Musicians B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians (assessed as Mid-importance).

Metal B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Metal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of heavy metal music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MetalWikipedia:WikiProject MetalTemplate:WikiProject MetalHeavy Metal articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

I notice if you do a search for "spiritual healing" you're redirected to "Faith Healing". However, "Spiritual Healing" gets you to the album page. Would it make sense to rename the page as "Spiritual Healing (album)" or somehow alter the redirect page to a disambiguation one? These comments also added to the album discussion page. IainP (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick ask on the Help pages, I've instead added a note to the top of the "Faith healing" page. IainP (talk) 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Citation or some proof of true existence needed. Otherwise, article should be deleted for irrelevance and no proof of existence. --Ryouga 01:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

never heard of it. Isn't mentioned in the liner notes of the death re-releases and Google shows no results. And it sounds terrible much like a joke to me. Delete it if you wish Spearhead 09:46, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait for a little while and see if anyone knows something (they can post here or on my talk). If we get nothing, we'll dismiss it as non existent garbage, and then delete it. --Ryouga 20:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of such an EP released by Death. I have recently done some research and have even gone to the releases section of the Empty Words website: Releases. I have searched the list of releases and have found no proof of the Death EP. Therefore, I believe it is safe to say that this EP is non-existent, and must be removed. --Insineratehymn

I found it interesting that, out of the blue, someone from the "Bay Area" (according to their IP address) edited the Death (band) page to re-write history re: John Hand. Suddenly Hand's contribution went from merely appearing in the Scream Bloody Gore album photos to 'co-writing 20 songs with Chuck and Chris'.

This flies in the face of every, single band biography available on the net. Every fan (or student of death metal) knows that John Hand did not record or play a single gig with Death. This is not meant as a slam against Hand, but simply the correct telling of history. Chuck often said that Hand got a 'great deal' out of his association with Death: namely, from being in the band 'two weeks' his face and name are forever associated with one of the pioneer death metal releases. The fact remains that Chuck played all guitar parts on that first Death album, and hence received the royalties and payments in perpetuity for that release.

I certainly wonder who it was from the San Francisco area that thought it quaint to sneak in and change what really happened after all these years...I'm not insinuating that it was John Hand himself, but if it was he could have the decency to come forth (finally) to dispute head-on what is accepted as the story of the band instead of (possibly) taking this back door approach...It would mean Hand challenging for the first time Chuck's contract with Combat in hopes of battling out royalties due - and that is a ridiculous notion because Hand was never due a single penny.

I don't know if this matters anymore because I have no clue when this was posted, but I went back and did some research about the "John Hand" situation. And discovered that Hand only contributed to the Scream Bloody Gore album photos. So the user above was right. I believe though that they should sight some resources so that if there is any question to whether the article is relevant or not, other people will be able to check and see for themselves.
Catherine Slaughter
XxNo.One.RunsxX 14:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this where Death started being technical?

No. It started with Human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did Chuck use additional effects to change his voice on that Judas Priest cover song ? I Mean, some parts aren't "growled", so you can hear harmonics in the voice at some moments, but did he use computer effects of something like that to sound more acute, or could he really sing like that ?

From what I'm aware of he could sing like that. He was originally going to be the vocalist for Control Denied but he wanted to focus more on guitar so he got another vocalist.

Actually, originally he wanted Ronnie James Dio, he never wanted to do vocals for Control Denied.

Death (band) - History

"22:25, 23 April 2007 Sn0wflake (Talk | contribs) m (16,376 bytes) (Let's settle for not using such arbitrary definitions. Death's style is quite complex, and has mostly used elements from both genres throughout their career.)"

---> Using "Progressive Metal" definition for this band is arbitrary aswell, that's the denomination you'll get after listening a couple(or more) prog-metal bands, not before that, and without that, you wouldn't even think to relate DEATH in any way with the term "progressive"; DEATH doesn't have a single one, clear prog rock influence (as a progrocker I can't find any in their music, and the album that is called the most "proggie" from them is very far from "prog" music). Most of prog-metal bands have a clear or very recognizable prog rock influence on their music, still, some prog-heads don't accept those bands that much as truly progressive, but that's most of times a fact of narrow-mind. Complex, melodic, doesn't make one band progressive, the term "technical" will fit better than "progressive" in many metal bands like this, and will clear the doubt for new people in the prog genre, and of course this will help to improve wikipedia, taking out the fan's or non-neutral oppinion from the articles of this online encyclopedia, thanks. –Progrocker7 02:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_metal#Technical_death_metal. And then: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_metal#Progressive_death_metal.

While I dont think Death were ever death metal and progressive at the same time, i disagree with them being called "progressive death metal" (see the talk page for chuck schuldiner). Death's early works were also very thrashy (deathrash), but theyre definitely death. However, when Chuck took the band in the progressive direction, they became less death metal (and they were never as heavy as the death metal bands coming out at that time). Prog metal isn't supposed to sound like prog rock...metal isn't supposed to sound like rock. Keep that in mind. Two different genres. As you're a "progrocker" yourself, I understand youre perhaps not going to understand. Deaths music wasnt nearly as technical as techdeath bands, but it definitely was progressive. See: talk page for chuck. Isilioth 02:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't know much about Death metal do you? Progressive death metal, and technical death metal are the same thing. You even go as far as to say Death was not Death metal because they weren't as heavy as the other bands? Death was a pioneer in death metal, enough so that Chucks considered the father of death metal. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thanks for answering, but I'm sorry, I don't need to read those, because I know all of that very much and of course have a well-formed discernment about music, indeed, I do respect Death's music and some metal music, and of course prog-metal bands who are really progressive basing their sound in metal obviously, but they are influenced by at least 1 or more recognizable prog rock bands, no doubt about that, and being really accurate that's the only way to be truly prog-metal and not just technical metal disguised of "prog", and by they way I never said metal is supposed to sound like rock, metal is metal. And how trustable is for you wikipedia in this kind of things?, I think many of the bands information here were done by fans, not experts in the genre, that's what makes it unbalanced, and to be only non-neutral, nor expert, fan's appreciation, nothing more.

And something else, Death are progressive like..? name at least 1 prog rock band (not metal nor prog-metal bands), it seems you won't be able to cite any because they haven't any prog root, since that's the only way to be accepted by the neutral point of view and the experience, of an expert of prog music as a real prog-metal band, I think that's the only trustable way or source in matters of prog.

Then "x" band is starting to be considered as progressive by FANS, not experts in prog, only fans of this "x" band, could you really trust them?, and if this band doesn't have any clear prog rock root, why to consider them progressive?, you see there's no single reason to do that; and why not just simply stay out of "prog" denomination and all this term involves? why to not just say it's complex metal instead?, thanks. –Progrocker7 19:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progrocker7, again, please keep opinions to yourself. You are not the authority on Prog or any subject on this entire website. Your supposed well-formed discernment about music is useless here, as we simply repeat sources. Wikidan829 14:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not an expert in prog yourself, there is no room for original research here. Wikidan829 15:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

— I may not be the authority on prog in this site, yes, but I just cited how the term progressive metal really appeared and was accepted by the prog community -for your knowledge-, prog-heads are way more reliable than any internet source if you have noticed it this far (I really hope you'd). Repeating unreliable and not expert sources (you said MTV was a good source), is as bad as posting your own unbalanced oppinion, Wikidan829, and why do you say I'm not an expert in prog?? how could you possibly say that if you don't really know me??... Trust me, when it comes to prog I know what I'm talking about. –Progrocker7 02:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Progrocker7. I want you to please understand. This is not a personal issue. Like I said on the Tool discussion, I am not picky over genres. As a musician myself, my opinion is that genres are non-existent. By this I mean that a genre may change from song to song, from album to album, even within the same song! I personally do not like prog music. I know it when I hear it, and I do not like it. So why would I still call my favorite band "progressive rock"? For a favorite band, and for a genre I do not like, don't you think I would take this as an insult? The explanation is simple - that is what Wikipedia is about. We relay information and summarize it for the masses. This is not a place about opinions. If it were a place about opinions, I would happily go with the genre "art rock" and leave it at that(for Tool), no prog rock. But this is not the place for opinions.

Unfortunately, MTV is crap, I know this as well as you do, but they do have an authority over us individuals. They are media. They are a "reliable" source. I think this is what our disparity has to do with. Bands "have been called" progressive rock or progressive metal. ALTHOUGH we both disagree that it truly is progressive rock or progressive metal, that has no place in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is about relaying information, and nothing more. This is the best I can describe it. If MTV or some other interview moron called it Progressive Rock or Progressive Metal, then we relay the information. Straight up, no opinions or personal taste involved. That is what Wikipedia is about, whether you(or I) like it or not. Regards, Wikidan829 03:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Death is Technical Death Metal. When they got progressive, they still had the Death Metal styling, making them progressive death metal, or technical death metal. They were never just progressive, so progressive metal does not apply to them. MTV is not a reliable source. They try to redefine things. MTV would consider deathcore bands death metal, and many other mistakes. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 19:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think melodic death metal should be added. They're later stuff (sound perseverance for example) is definitely melodeath. he uses a higher pithched vocal style, melodic riffs et c. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.5.155.191 (talk) 13:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the line commenting that The Philosopher was written as a "lyrical slam" as someone put it against Paul Masvidal because of an ambigious reference which is basically..

"Interestingly, the lyrics on ITP were quite angry, in contrast to the gore-oriented earlier albums and more spiritual later ones. The lyrics arose from Schuldiner's frustrations with the music industry, including lack of label promotion and legal altercations with Death manager Eric Greif (who produced Morbid Saint's Spectrum of Death) and various former bandmates."

If you can find a better reference add it back in but otherwise leave it.

No lyrics written by Death would ever be a driect slam of someone they might have had more meaning to Chuck like that but they were directed at a large group becuase that is how his music was written. Songs such as "The Philosopher" are talking about people who think they are smart and know everything but in realality know nothing about what they are talking about that is true. However lyrics can be interpeted in many ways so do not put anything on the page about lyrical meanings. For further proof of how lyrics can be interpeted differently look up the PMRC and how they didn't understand the song "Under the Knife" by Twisted Sister. Metalocalypse 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)MetalocalypseMetalocalypse 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the posting below. I agree with you in a general sense Metalocalypse, but Chuck admitted in interviews, etc. at the time that ITP contained personal slams on at least two folks - his former manager (half the album) and Masvidal (The Philosopher), who has always been into eastern philosophy and is openly gay but during the Human tour had not 'come out yet' (and neither had Reinert, who is also openly gay and came out during the late 90s). This needs to be encyclopedic, which isn't necessarily flattering about those we edit about. However, Chuck did state in interviews for Symbolic that his experience writing for ITP was important to him personally since it got out a lot of frustration. This isn't about censorship but about writing what we find to be accurate. Best, A Sniper 10:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"but Chuck admitted in interviews" - again A Sniper, if Chuck admitted in interviews why is it that all you can produce is a comment from someone claiming to be Eric Grief? And I would assume you also have some evidence for claiming both Paul and Sean are gay? If you don't I'd suggest removing your comments. Wikipedia is increasingly growing in credibility with the information it provides and hence what we write should not be based on second hand information or rumors. I quote from directly below this box, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." Final Thoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, the issue is whether Schuldiner wrote The Philosopher about Masvidal, not the sexual preferences of former band members. A Sniper 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the reference to a better one and added back the Masvidal mention. Sorry but historical revisionism has no place at Wikipedia. Anyone in the know about Schuldiner & Death are aware that 'The Philosopher' is about Masvidal. Ex-manager Greif mentions it at the usually-accurate Blabbermouth (run by former Schuldiner fan/friend Borivoj Krgin):

"Chuck told me himself on the phone (in 1993), at a time when we were in the midst of a lawsuit over business stuff, that he had written The Philosopher about Paul and "half" his new album (I.T.P.) about me. I'm not proud of this, but it is a fact nevertheless. There is a lot of anger on that record, lyrically, but that represented the way things were back then. Chuck himself, in an interview I saw on YouTube (re: the release of Symbolic), said that he got out a lot of anger writing those I.T.P. lyrics, so it did serve a purpose. ERIC"

This should end the debate. A Sniper

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to ITP album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to Live in LA album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to Live in Eindhoven album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

Explanation for Fair Use Rationale added to The Sound of Perseverance album cover page. Warning removed. A Sniper

I, as former Manager of Death at the time Chuck drew his more streamlined band logo (prior to the release of Human), have given a fair use rationale for use of it, including the fact that we allowed anyone and everyone to duplicate it (as long as it was not involved in commercial gain), and I hereby remove the warning. Griffyguy

If anyone needs a reference for Kam Lee designing the original logo, it can be found here: http://www.voicesfromthedarkside.de/interviews/kamlee.html. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Durandal1717 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this link doesn't work - besides, I am sure that Laurent or any of the VftD guys would say that Kam Lee's word alone on the subject of the band Death wouldn't necessarily be considered a reliable, objective source. Perhaps adding something like "Kam Lee has made the claim that...", but you'd need a decent link. A Sniper (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could come to this page before making your sweeping edits and rather non-good faith statements against the regular editors who do our best to keep this page accurate and NPOV. Best, A Sniper 15:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All FUR templates finished for remaining Death covers that were under threat. I thereby blanked all the warnings. A Sniper 17:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fate The Best Of Death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Live in Eindhoven death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Live in LA death.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a search for the word mantas and I was directed here. If it is a previous band, than why does it direct here? Anyway, mantas are a item woven by native tribesmen in the amazon and I wanted to see what the wikipedia article on them said. Oh well. Contralya (talk) 03:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mantas was originally the name of the band before they became Death and if what you mentioned can be notable enough that it can be verified with reliable sources then we could create a Mantas dablink that directs there or vice versa. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 05:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhh I don't think they even have an article on what Contralya is talking about. I went to the Manta (disambiguation) page. They talk about quite a few things that deal with the name Manta and Mantas, but not any item woven in the Amazon. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of coarse, there must be a Mantas (clothing) (or w.e it is) article to begin with. That's why I said if it is notable enough for inclusion with sources, etc. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 22:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the user brings up one thought. Maybe "Mantas" shouldn't be a redirect to this page. Maybe it should redirect to the disambig page. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 22:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to just redirect it now, as it makes sense because it could be the plural for the clothing and who would happen to know the earlier name of Death, so it's just natural to redirect it to the Manta (disambiguation) page instead because they have a mention of their earlier name there anyway. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 21:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that the above user appears to be trolling articles I've contributed to and making blanking attempts, deletions, and whatever else. This appears to be based on malicious intent (for want of any other explanation) and not on verifiability, good faith or interest in the article topics. Sooner or later this user will work his/her way from the Chuck Schuldiner article over to this page. Cheers, A Sniper (talk) 21:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should not be included in genres as it is a redirect of Technical death metal which is also a listed genre.

Agreed, but I have addded Progressive metal to the genres as this side of the band needs to be adressed. And sign your comments. Johan Rachmaninov (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To User:A Sniper:
Hi. Almost the whole article is totally unsourced and is almost completely unverifiable. Do not understand it as an offence, but that is just a fact and the readers should be informed about it. There are some sources in the infobox, in the lead section and also in the "Memebers" section, but the Biography - the main body of the article is just simply unsourced except for one single sentence. See for example Slayer or Metallica to have a picture about how a sourced article looks like. Almost every sentence should have an inline citation. On the other hand, I did not read the sources. If the sources cover the text in the article, just add the inline citations to the text (just like in Slayer or Metallica)! And the problem will be fixed! But if there are no inline citations, the reader does not know what is sourced and what not. So if there are sources, just use them as inline citations:

Use this once for each source:
<ref name="NAME (for example BlahBlah1)">{{cite web
| url = http://???
| publisher =
| title =
| author =
| accessdate = YYYY-MM-DD
}}</ref>
And then use the source again with:
<ref name="NAME (for example BlahBlah1)" />
Cheers :) --  LYKANTROP  20:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. However, since most of the unreferenced sections come directly from the source already listed (emptywords.org), the citations are both irrelevant and unnecessary. I do take your point that citations would support the accuracy, but on the other hand no user has come forward to challenge any of the information that has now been on the page for at least two years. If you have particular concerns over a specific sentence or paragraph, then discuss it. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're right. But still I mean, an addition of one inline citation to the end of each paragraph (if it has only one source) would make it much more transparent and easily verifiable. And in the end it would also look sourced. And you could also fix the small unsourced things and add it to Wikipedia:Good article nominations, cause it is a well written article in my opinion.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you are capable of discussing things instead of running crying to Elizabeth Bathory, et al. The only reason I left my reasons for editing on your talk page instead of this page is because you left messages on my talk page. Forgive me if I haven't mastered every nuance of Wikipedia. Since you haven't obeyed the prohibition on edit warring, I think you've called the kettle black by complaining to Bathory and others about my leaving you messages on your talk page instead of here, which as far as I know, is an unwritten etiquette matter, as opposed to edit warring, which is a stated policy. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're close to getting blocked. Regular editors are civil to each other. We do not attack the person - we focus on the edits. We reach consensus. I'm sure others are advising you to get yourself an account if you're serious... A Sniper (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am close to getting blocked, that is your unjust doing. You have repeatedly provoked me by your edit warring and accusations of vandalism. No one can take that lying down. And anyway, your passive aggression toward me is far worse than anything I have said to you. Instead of engaging me in a discussion about the validity of my edits, you have just reverted them dictatorially or libeled me to your fellow sysadmins. And even now, you're accusing me of a lack of seriousness? How dare you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion there doesn't need to be too much information on the two roadies that went on the tour of Europe with bassist Terry Butler and drummer Bill Andrews. Mentioning their names is by far enough weight to the story - anything else is undue. Butler and Andrews had no legal authority to undertake the tour (as Schuldiner was the proprietor of 'Death', as mentioned in almost every biography) and they were sacked from the band upon their return home. Therefore, biographical or incidental information on the two roadies is irrelevant. They literally did the tour as 'players' at the last minute, and due exclusively to their proximity to Butler and Andrews due to being band roadies. By the way: these two folks once had their own articles, but these were deleted due to a lack of notoriety. That they were once members of a defunct band is trivia and unconnected. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fascist. Skulduggery88 (talk) 16:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean I like faces?  ;) A Sniper (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your comment, misspelling corrected months after the fact or not  ;) A Sniper (talk) 19:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

too bad. 86.128.164.43 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

concentrate on the article and editing - don't focus on editors and calling them names. A Sniper (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An online fanzine had an interview with Chuck in which, true to Chuck's nature, he stated that he didn't feel that he should take the credit for the term 'death metal'. This was Chuck being humble and modest. the user has tried to use the reference to show that, actually, the band Death were NOT death metal. The edits have been reverted. I have used the adverb 'modestly' as any reader can gather this from the reference itself - that Chuck was not wanting to lay claim to a title that has been internationally bestowed on him and one that made him feel uncomfortable yet proud. Thoughts? Best, A Sniper (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "any reader can gather this from the reference itself," your adverb need not be added. Also, how do you know how Schuldiner felt? Do you have a quote from him saying that he felt "uncomfortable yet proud"? No? Then back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

use of such terms as back off are unacceptable. if you have a problem with an edit, then edit. I would also again suggest that you get yourself an account, as well as read up on proper citation and use of tildes, etc. for talk pages. A Sniper (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"use of such terms as back off are unacceptable." Stay cool, man! Also, I love how the only part of my comment you address is my injunction to you. That's wonderful.

"if you have a problem with an edit, then edit" I do, but then you instantly revert them, don't you?

Please don't talk to me about "proper citation." You don't even know how to use commas.

What I am referring to isn't your use of language - it is the proper use of Wikipedia for leaving a message on a talk page. If you check your talk page, you'll see that a 'bot' has left you a message

to this effect. A Sniper (talk) 04:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death was certainly a death metal band. lulz, you're new at this aren't ya? Chuck didn't take the credit. By your logic the only death metal band is Possessed then. XXMurderSoulXx (talk) 10:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Schuldiner was the only member to remain in the band from start to end (although even he was not ever-present)." This statement is self-contradictory. If he was not ever-present, then he was not the only member to remain in the band from start to end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

good call. A Sniper (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no thanks. I don't need any approbation from you.

This lack of good faith, directed at an editor, is not acceptable. Focus on the edits, not the editor. A Sniper (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you call it a lack of good faith doesn't make it so. (And anyone with half-open eyes can see through your attempt to frame your b.s. argument that I'm a vandal in "good faith"/"bad faith" language. It's not going to fly, so, to quote yourself, "stop it.") Also, why don't you practice what you preach? Accusing me of bad faith is clearly an attack directed at me. Not only that, but as a lawyer, you should know that accusing someone of bad faith is pretty much one of the worst things you can do. I am rightfully outraged.

If it's necessary to say that the interview is an ezine or fanzine or Metal-Rules.com interview, then it is also proper to note in the text that the "pioneering" remark in the first sentence of the article comes from MTV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.5.88 (talk) 03:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, you shouldn't focus on the editor, but instead the edit. Directing your thoughts towards me is not the way things are done here. I don't care if MTV is listed, but YOU should familiarize yourself with the proper way to leave talk page messages, and how to sign them so that the bots don't have to do it for you. A Sniper (talk) 03:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you do care, because you reverted that edit previously. Also, why, under this heading, are you speaking to me directly? My comment about MTV was not directed at you in particular.

Previous poster, please sign your posts with four tildes. As far as adding that MTV states this, isn't that a superflous comment being that there are atleast 4 other sources linked stating the same thing, just using different words? Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 12:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to A Sniper edit from 15:33, 28 October 2008: emptywords.org/, Metal Rules, aom.dead-inside.org(altars of metal) are not reliable - they fail under WP:SPS. These sources are useless for wikipedia. I don't know about thehighhat.com (I did't check it properly). One pretty bold statement is sourced by a reference called "ibid" - what should this stay for? I am not deleting the unreliable sources only because I don't want to be a pain in the ass here.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 16:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A regularly updated eZine, with reliable references, is not self-publishing. Nor is the internationally-known European metal magazine Aardshok. Nor is the emptywords.org official Death site, which luckily catalogs almost every Death-related article ever published and is an invaluable cache of reliable sources. And Ibid is referencing shorthand for Ibidem, which refers to the previous reference - so, if you don't like that either, simply re-state the previous reference since it is (probably) what was being referred to. Best, A Sniper (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got rid of the Ibid. use. Instead I took the lazy way and re-listed the same reference. If you want to take the extra two minutes to set up a single publication reference (so that the footnote number is re-used), please go ahead, since it now has two separate number references. Best, A Sniper (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that one page is the official (I didn't see that before) but it would be great if you could provide sources for those statements about the other sources. Cheers.--  LYKANTROP  ✉ 19:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the ref - I'm getting more lazy as time goes by. As for the other refs, Wikipedia policy on self-publishing really refers to folks who publish their own book, and then reference it. It doesn't imply that ongoing eZines =, no matter who publishes them, are part of the self-publishing edict. Just because one person sets up a website, conducts interviews and then puts them on the net doesn't mean we cannot use that as a source. It depends on the site itself, even if this is a subjective issue on the part of editors. Best, A Sniper (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/arts/music/15rubi.html What about these guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.96.83 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure there are other 'Death' bands out there. However, this band seems notable to me. You can create the article as Death (rock band) or something along those lines, though before you do this, please read WP:BAND. If you do happen to create it and it doesn't get deleted, I will add a hatnote at the top of the page here. FireCrystal (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind this now. It looks like the band's link was found as Death (punk band) and added at the top of the page. FireCrystal (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm bringing this uh, "debate" to the talk page. Read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133#Associated Content.2C gettin.27 paid to spam and Talk:Associated Content#Spam filter. Associated Content fails WP:RS and WP:SPS. Dom Coccaro does not appear to be "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". The genre already includes three citations, so this really shouldn't be an issue. APK straight up now tell me 19:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I couldn't care less whether the Coccaro quote is removed. However, the reason there are a number of references is that an editor insisted that the genre was inaccurate to describe the band, hence several references to support the claim. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what was the point of reverting my edit? I'm removing the reference. APK straight up now tell me 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was reverted for the very reason I mentioned - the more citations to bolster the genre reference, the better. However, there are enough to easily trump any attempt at removing the inclusion of the genre so it makes little difference whether it is removed. A Sniper (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]