User talk:Ours18

Welcome!

Hello, Ours18, and

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

]

Regarding your edits

Please read the

policy, which can lead to a ban for you.

Glam metal is a subgenre of heavy metal, read its article. Led Zeppelin are seen as many people as a founding heavy metal band; see its article on this website also.

And while you're at it, blanking large sections of legitimate articles, like you did here[1] also strongly goes against policy, please take time to get yourself more familiar with these little rules and regulations that helps Wiki tick over better. -

]

"Straw man vote?" I didn't make one, like I said it is the consensus of the majority of the metal community. Please note MTV, Rolling Stone Magazine, and all other mainstream musical publications do not count as "part of the metal community."

You were trolling, so far as I can see. I wasn't the only one to say so either. You clearly had no idea what you were talking about---not an attack, just a statement of what anyone could see.

I have read enough about glam "metal" and heard enough about glam "metal" to know that it is not metal. Once again, I encourage you to broaden your scope a bit when looking for sources to cite---it's common knowledge in the metal community that nearly all glam bands are not metal. This is part of the reason why you have so many metalheads cruising the site and editing articles, and then getting into edit wars, because they/we know the site is wrong but everytime we try to change it some revisionist rock fan/punk fan/mallcore fan (whatever the argument happens to be about) changes it back, then uses more incorrect Wiki articles as a source. Please, search elsewhere.

And I don't care if many people claim Zep to be a founding metal band; the fact is most metalheads realize they are not metal. Which reminds me: a band can play a critical role in founding a genre without actually being part of it. The fact of the matter is, most meatl fans do not see much metal in Zep's music.

Fine, I won't blanket articles like that again, but then how are we going to resolve this issue? Nu metal is NOT metal---once again, look outside mainstream music publications for sources to confirm it. Metalheads, including those who like some numetal/mallcore (which includes me, I might add) almost universally agree on that. If we can't change the article to reflect the truth, what do you expect us to do? That list is flat-out wrong, no ands or buts about it, but people will use it to cite more incorrect information in other articles.

Ours18 03:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to have the slightest idea what "metalhead" is, you are likely coming from the perspective of a post-thrash view... bands in the extreme metal subsidary are debated as not metal at all by some of the older metalheads.... even the drummer of Iron Maiden has called black metal "false metal". Led Zeppelin and the like are viewed as metal by the original metalheads you know the people who started the movement in the 1970s.. that carries alot more water than people 30 years later who just listen to subgenres of it, werent born when the original movement was around or involved with it, yet for some reason attempt to insert themselves as an authority on what "metal is and isn't"....

Whether you like it or not

is clearly a subgenre of metal also.

Please read the article on

]

"bands in the extreme metal subsidary are debated as not metal at all by some of the older metalheads.... even the drummer of Iron Maiden has called black metal "false metal"." Please source these two claims. (Not that the Maiden drummer isn't biased - he's christian, of course he wouldn't like black metal... still, source?) 66.36.147.40 04:47, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't post that huge text on the EM talk page. Use

]

Done. Ours18 21:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to come up with some better sources; Anus.com is a

site, read the description at the top "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history." not a reliable source and not a notable site anyway.

BNRMetal.com INCLUDES Led Zeppelin in its archive and says no heavy metal discussion is complete without them... that isn't "agreeing" with EM at all, who exclude the band entirely from their website. -

]

It says they are hard rock, and since MA is NOT a history site and only a metal archival site fit to archive unquestionably METAL bands, it fits in the page. ANUS has been delted from wikipedia before on those same acusations, and then were allowed back on because the ending vote decided they were encyclopedia-worthy. So they are perfectly notable.

ANUS is also considered by MANY in the metal community to be a very reliable source for metal historical information---not just "Cookie Monster Music" fans. So they are perfectly reliable.

I suggest you stop inserting your POV in every single article I edit. Ours18 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anus.com isn't reliable, it is only extreme metal related and says so in its very heading, "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history." it is also a non notable site comparing to the sources that contradict it.

BNRMetal.com... a heavy metal website has a profile up for Led Zeppelin and says that no heavy metal discussion is complete without Led Zeppelin, that is entirly the opposite to EM's stance on the band, it does not "agree" with EM at all. Did you actually read the article?... you do realise heavy metal is a form of hard rock right? So its the same as a website saying for example, that Guns N' Roses are a rock n' roll band when infact they're hard rock.... the link you provided nowhere says "Led Zeppelin are not a heavy metal band"... infact it says the complete opposite.

You'll have to find something more substantial than that to try and push your POV. -

]

While ANUS is called "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history.", the name of the article is "The History of Heavy Metal Music". ANUS is quite a known site in the metal community, and is certainly way more reliable than AMG, which only has a handful of metal bands and lots of absurd genres.

About BNR, while it's true that they say that no discussion is complete without Led Zeppelin, they are also classify them as classic rock. That's the same as saying that no discussion about english / swedish death metal is complete without mentioning punk / hardcore bands. The fact that those non-metal bands influenced metal bands do not make them metal as well.

About Led Zeppelin, if they were "the definitive heavy metal band", you would expect that a lot of bands would cover their songs. Now go to EM, change the search to "song title" and search for Led Zeppelin and Black Sabbath. Now tell me your results and the only obvious conclusion you can achieve. Evenfiel 14:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anus.com does not pass Wiki's notablity policy and I've already pointed out that it is a "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history." website, stated by the website itself..

Regardless, that very site itself, along with Black Sabbath, calls Led Zeppelin AND Blue Cheer heavy metal;

"At that point, however, the formula for 1970s heavy metal was established: a smidgen of the King Crimson esoteric weirdness, the dark Gothic haunting cavernous sound of Black Sabbath, the guitar wizardry of Deep Purple and Led Zeppelin, the physical thunder and brash insane hedonism of Blue Cheer. "[2]

And as already shown, BNRMetal.com doesn't agree with EM's exclusion of genuine metal bands, shown by the fact that Led Zeppelin have their own article included on that metal site.

As I pointed out earlier, searching EM for anything reliable related to

]

Ok, I have to say something here before I even read on myself. Anybody who knows anything about metal (especially 'extreme' metal) from listening experience can tell you in no uncertain terms that AMG's metal resources are questionable at best. The genre dilineations, whatever your personal view, are laughable (death/black metal), and many of the reviews, especially for the heavier bands follow the standard patronising, denigrating and ignorant 'it's just childish noise' theme common amongst mainstream music critics. Also there are outright inaccuracies in places. AMG shouldn't really be considered a reliable resource for metal music, especially for the more esoteric debates on the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thelzdking (talk • contribs) 15:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are pretty good at twisting words, aren't you? ANUS does not say that Led Zeppelin is a heavy metal bands. They say, numerous times in the article, that they are a rock band. The text you quoted simple says that Heavy Metal has elements found in classic rock. It's like saying that thrash metal used the aggression of punk / hardcore music. Got it?

As I already pointed out, AMG is not viewed as a good source of metal knowledge. I've been a member of metal forums and mailing lists since 1998, and I've never, ever saw anyone talking about AMG. As a matter of fact, the first time I've seen them was in this discussion about EM. Searching AMG for anything related to metal is laughable. How many bands they have? 400? Pretty much all of them with absurd genres. ANUS is way more reliable and known in the metal scene than AMG.

As me and other users already shown, bnrmetal.com does not consider Led Zeppelin a metal band. He classifies them as hard rock and they were only added to the site because some hard rock bands have an appeal to metal fans, not because they are metal. Here is what the site says about Hard Rock and Glam:

In reality, the difference between "hard rock" and "heavy metal" is a fine line, and widely open to debate and interpretation. To these ears, hard rock really seems to be the more radio-friendly version, while heavy metal opts for a more sinister, darker sound. Practically every band in the so-called glam or hair genre probably slots in hard rock, and many debate about whether such bands are really metallic or not (the number of glam bands on this site gives a clue as to this author's opinion). Nonetheless, there were and are many bands not in the glam arena that are best described as hard rock, and many of them have sufficient crossover appeal to belong on a metal site.

What's the problem with EM and heavy metal? They don't have the rock bands that you classify as metal, that's why the site is laughable? Encyclopaedia Metallum is the world's largest metal database website. It's always quoted in metal forums and mailing lists, while poor AMG isn't. Please think before you type out ridiculous claims in regards to notability, thanks.Evenfiel 02:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

World's largest "extreme metal" related website? perhaps.. heavy metal? no, unless you are 15 years old and think metal starts with Slayer. As I showed already, Anus.com says Led Zeppelin are heavy metal in the paragraph I quoted.. what does its bias against glam metal infavour of hardcore non-metal related music have to do with anything? -

]

1) Your "paragraph" is out of context. 2) Your claims about "extreme metal" have been constantly refuted. 3) Your "15 year old" snide remarks are ad hominems. 4) Your claims about ANUS failing the Wikipedia standards are false. *sigh* It is pretty clear that you are not interested in making the article, or Wikipedia [3], better, but simply fighting on some vendetta against EM and inserting your POV wherever you please. I'd like to assume good faith from you and simple ignorance, but seeing as you can't even return the favour to everyone else with your "15 year old kid" ad hominems, it's getting increasingly difficult to do so. 69.70.27.42 12:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use sockpuppets, stay logged in while you edit Wikipedia. I don't really see the point in replying to you again, because you're just commenting on stuff which I have already dismissed, you've not added anything new at all. 1)The paragraph is not out of context, that websites states cleary that the band are heavy metal. 2) The site itself states clearly "Death metal, black metal, thrash and grindcore as history." 3) Then please stop vandalising articles, and contradicting other information on Wikipedia to push extreme metal POV. 4) Sigh all you want, please follow the notability policy, and the fact that the website has two contradicting stances within it does not help its reliability much. -

]

I'll copy and paste this discussion in EM's talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Deathrocker, I'll answer your post later.Evenfiel 15:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ours18, anonymous, use the EM discussion page instead.Evenfiel 16:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deathrocker 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I have moved it, but it was not any more of a personal attack than your commentary. Unfortunately for you, it was sourced against you, hence I've moved it to a proposal to have you banned. You have repeayedly insulted and harrassed other users with the obvious intention of proving you are superior due to your tastes (calling them/us "kids" all the time etc), yet are unable to swallow it when someone rats you out for doing it. I'm afraid that your increasingly dishonest edits are making it difficult to have any sort of civil debate with you. Thankfully, you will probably be banned from editing Wikipedia in a few months, but until then, please refrain from lying about other users (and my own) editing and sources, and please act in good faith until the mods realize stricter actions are necessary for you. Have a nice day (see, I can be condescending too).Ours18 21:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tool

I'm as annoyed as you are by the monkeys who keep switching Tool's genre, but let's try to stay civil and keep a clear head. I'd hate to see you be reprimanded or, even worse, banned for something to trivial. --King Bee 17:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does what they are doing count as vandalism? Cause I think that page really needs some kind of protection from anon users, they've been exceptionally militant about adding false info to that article lately.

It doesn't necessarily count as vandalism, but it's bordering on

lame edit war. --King Bee 20:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Your edits

Metal is metal is metal. Please stop genreizing everything to the nth degree. All it does is create pointless edit wars, which the

Stick Fig 01:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree. --Trusader 03:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and nu metal is not metal. Never was, never will be. End of. Besides, as it currently reads, there is no mention of genres, so there's no more need for dispute. Ours18 02:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We went through a month of edit wars over the order of the words rapcore and nu metal. I don't care whether or not it is, I'm just pointing out how silly the argument is in the first place. If I see you making edits like this again, I'll decategorize them so we won't have any other stupid arguments about this. -

Stick Fig 02:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Please stop reverting articles

There's a reason why

Stick Fig 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Civility

This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia. Please abide by our policy on

civility. | Mr. Darcy talk 05:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Mallcore

Hi! I'd like to thank you for the support you have given for the mallcore article on its deletion entry. I have met so few people that thing the same way as I do, I'm happy I'm not all alone! I have contributed pretty much on the article and I am wondering if you would accept to help me re-write the article from A to Z if the article was to be deleted. Thanks in advance, Zouavman Le Zouave 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit to List of Heavy Metal bands

A famous symphonic band such as

Deathrocker 05:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

American Nihilist Underground Society

Hey. I'm currently re-writing this, trying to cite every sentence, so you might want to wait before adding content to the current version. Prolog 21:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the users have acted in

good faith. Original research is always a problem, but now that all of it has been removed from the article, and notability is established, the number of real reasons for the deletion of the article is down to zero. Prolog 22:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

"grammar nazi"

Hey, i don't think that the term "grammar NAZI" sounds to good, what about "grammar freak" or something to that effect? --Dexter prog 20:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rock music Wikiproject invitation

Hello WikiProject Metal member.
WikiProject Metal music is important in expanding encyclopedic coverage of the metal. It brings attention to the lesser-known bands, and significantly improves the quality of the famous ones. Five Featured articles and two formers is proof of that.
This is the stuff I wish to achieve with the somewhat recently resurrected

WikiProject Rock music. I hope to also attract attention to rock music

articles of all sorts, and hopefully change some to GA or FA status. I invite you to come join us, and embrace the links between metal and rock music in general.
Rock on.
-- Reaper X 05:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 21, 2007

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.

welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 156.34.220.114 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello

Please stop adding POV to the article Christian metal, just because you do not believe there is such as Christian black metal doesn't make it so, black metal has evolved into its own musical style besides the lyrics. Also, so what if its roots were anti-Christian, so was the Christmas tree, what is your point?--E tac 06:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy

I noticed your edit to The Dartmouth Review. Amen. User:Ccccprescott is causing trouble; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Ccccprescott. I don't really know what to do after a few reverts of the user's edits. Dylan 04:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding this change

I reverted it. The link you provided does not show the claim it is citing. Please provide a more specific link if you can.--Rockfang (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I see it now.--Rockfang (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Ours18 (talk) 04:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Encyclopaedia Metallum

Why don't you post a "keep" vote in the discussion about EM? It would be better than just a comment. Evenfiel (talk) 14:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same guys are, again, trying to delete it... Evenfiel (talk) 10:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rock music

Newsletter for October 2008

The Rock music WikiProject Newsletter Issue 9 - October 2008

"As long as my face is on page one, I don't care what they say about me on page seventeen."- Mick Jagger Project news The project has a total of 106 GAs and 91 Featured Articles and Lists put together. We collaborated on Soul Bomb. Help us select good versions of WP:ROCK articles for inclusion on the Wikipedia 0.7 release! Find out more about Wikipedia 0.7 selection on the project talk page and add your thoughts to the discussion. If you are personally responsible for a Featured or Good Article listed here, please the select a version to include in Wikipedia 0.7 on that page if you haven't already. Page versions must be selected by October 20. The genres in infobox fields have been removed cause of the discussion found here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Time to remove genre section on info box?. You can provide any opinions you may have about this. This month's "Recommended Rock Album" is Soundgarden - Superunknown (1994).

Editors User:Be Black Hole Sun

Be Black Hole Sun (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal

Hello Ours18, you have received this notice because you have placed your name on the list of members of WikiProject Metal. We are currently looking to make the wikiproject more active, and in doing so, we need to have a list of active members on the wikiproject. If you wish to stay an active part of wikiproject metal, please add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Active Users. Conversely, if you wish to leave the wikiproject, please remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal/Members. Thank you.

Nomination of Jerusalem's Lot (Stephen King) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jerusalem's Lot (Stephen King) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jerusalem's Lot (Stephen King) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TTN (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom Elections 2016

: Voting now open!

Hello, Ours18. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ours18. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Ours18. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]