Talk:Stephen Thomas Erlewine

message: I don't think the guy should be chastised for... A) Not being a metalhead and knowing all of the ridiculous rules and divisions between subgenres and B) Having his own opinion.
I didn't find anything objectionable about either review.  I didn't see any mention of the term "black metal" at all in the Rammstein article and describing their sound as gothic or as prog metal isn't necessarily wrong.  Maybe to simple metalhead conventions sure, but there are other meanings.  Semantics have nothing to do with quality judgements.  What were the errors in the G'n'R review?  Seems right on target to me.  
The guy's background, knowledge, and taste in music is actually quite broad and detailed and judging the man based on something so completely subjective is ludicrous. Jonas.E.B. 07:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: The opening paragraph has far too much subjective language and superlatives. 
I'm not arguing the fact that is important, highly praised, or a prolific writer, but this needs to be toned down, as it sounds like fan-speak. So I'm going I'm reverting to the previous version. and perhaps that will address some the complaints on this talk page. 
Regarding the previous discussions, he may or may not actually be a good reviewer- but such an opinion is of no importance to Wikipedia- regardless of what any one person thinks, he is in fact a highly praised and respected critic. If any metal fans/critics/authors have actually published complaints about Stephen Erlewine or noted factual mistakes, then something could be mentioned about that. But this talk page is not the place to air your grievances with the man. 
This article also lacks references/sources, for the VH1 comment or to support the statement that he is highly praised. This article should cite sources to back these claims, but I didn't write this article, so I don't know what the sources would be. -Canjecricketer 17:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revising Subjective Language/Superlatives 

message: He is a third rate nobody.  Why does he still have a page here but Mark Prindle who is a much more well-known reviewer gets kicked off.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.190.89.247 (talk) 03:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Insults

message: The subject is known for his work on Allmusic. His byline there is Stephen Thomas Erlewine.  Unless proven with a reliable source that he goes by another name, no other name(s) should be provided. --CutOffTies (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname, also known as, etc 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Steven Thomas Erlewine.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: This is an article about an AllMusic employee, with ONLY AllMusic and their published books cited as sources!
This man is not truly NOTABLE. He's an Internet rock critic! And I'll bet my very privilege to edit Wikipedia that this "band" of his is going absolutely nowhere.
AllMusic is badly overused as a source, and VERY frequently has its facts wrong. I can't tell you HOW much bullshit I've removed from articles related to Pink Floyd, The Cars, and others, things I knew to be clearly false, or strictly opinion, originating ONLY from AllMusic.
Bad enough we overuse AllMusic, worse that we write an ARTICLE ABOUT AllMusic. But to give the actual reviewers their own articles? WHAT EVIL IS THIS?
--Ben Culture (talk) 00:57, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHAT the HELL? Does AllMusic OWN Wikimedia? 

message: Worst reviews, dumbest oppinions. He is the epitome of "failed musician turned critic without a clue" stereotype. 2003:ED:2F20:BD19:E88A:F985:CBEC:BEF1 (talk) 03:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  So why does Wiki suck this losers dick so hard?