Talk:L.D. 50 (album)

message: "Many of the songs on the L.D. 50 album include clips edited intricately into them of which are brought together to create the song L.D. 50 which is featured on the The Beginning of All Things to End album, along with other clips which are not featured in other songs."
lol what? i dunno who wrote this, but apparently they never heard TEOATTC "The song LD 50 featured on the beginning of TEOATTC"??? this whole part makes no sense, so i'm deleting it.69.218.199.100 01:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Miscellanea?

message: Is that supposed to be a baby on the cover? If not, what is it? Typhoid Orchid 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Art 

message: Here are some sources which can be used to help expand the article. (Sugar Bear (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: To avoid debate, let's go with heavy metal, considering that the most number of sources cited in this article describe the album as this. Also, Melody Maker, which was contested as a source since there's no link to read their review of the album, was used as the sole citation for progressive metal and nu metal has been removed, along with references to the album being progressive metal or nu metal. There - now the article reflects the sources. Stop complaining. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 08:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not remove items that are tagged. We are to assume good faith when additions like the Melody maker article are added. If we don't have a page number, it will be added once it can be found. Until then, I'm restoring that section. Andrzejbanas (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with heavy metal's use, but that's not a reason to discount other sources. As I stated in the section above, we've got two very prominent reliable sources calling them nu metal, and no valid reason given for discounting them. I'm going to add that too unless valid reason is given against their use. (Personal claims that its false is not a valid reason.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't. Most of them don't say exactly that the album is nu-metal. Revolver is questionable (see below) and descriptions of the band, not the album being "like nu-metal" without exactly describing them as nu-metal don't make for L.D. 50 being called a nu-metal album, especially when examples of the album clearly being identified as progressive rock are dismissed for the same reasoning, despite actually calling the album prog, unlike the nu-metal sources which tiptoe around the categorization, and it conflicts with the description of the music, other than a Revolver blog (which may be a questionable source) describing some vocals as being "liek rapping". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said below, Revolver is a useable source, but also, there's also the Rolling Stone article, where it appears both the Rolling Stone writer and a band member refer to the band as nu-metal. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've discussed this before -- it's a misquoting. Stop being contentious for the sake of being contentious. Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band. Evidence contradicts opinion. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 19:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please assume good faith. I'm informing you of the websites stance on source reliability, and their content. Nothing more. Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genres and sources 

message: I have some serious reservations about this citation. There isn't any information about the Revolver company, other than it being owned by NewBay Media. Moreover, I'm not sure if the writer is a staff member of the site, paid as an employee, or if this is part of a fan blog, since there's a spelling error of "like" as "liek". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 14:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources tied to a hard copy magazine, like Revolver (magazine) or Rolling Stone (magazine) are almost considered reliable, because what it takes to create a product that is nationally published. There's a strong consensus that its a usable source in music articles. There's no indication that this list was created by a blogger. Its posted in a news section, not any sort of blog section. Sergecross73 msg me 15:00, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really, because I haven't seen any evidence that this wasn't a fan post. Many websites of this sort have sections where readers can sign up for an account and post blogs on the site that are not connected to the paid staff. Plus, professional copyediting would have caught the word "liek". A basic spell checker would have caught the word "liek". 63.155.164.33 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The typo is surprising, I do admit, but quite the opposite, I don't see any evidence of Revolver having a user-blog section where random bloggers submit stories. Do you? If not, then a minor typo like this hardly discounts the source as a whole. Sergecross73 msg me 15:23, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Typo is weird, but happens. The author has written other articles with Revolver, as well as Alternative Press. Not that this source should be taken as a realistic wiki source, but his linkedin profile states, he has been a journalist from 1996 to 2013 "specializing in music, video games, new products, and modern parenting, I’ve had 2,000+ credits in major media outlets such as SPIN, Rolling Stone, Disney’s Babble.com, The Onion A.V. Club, Blender, eMusic, Revolver, Guitar World, Alternative Press, and the Phoenix New Times.". Good enough for me. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick google search also shows his work with Spin. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Good searching. Yeah, that's all more than enough to be considered usable/reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 16:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an opinion, but it still conflicts with evidence. Stylus magazine calls Rammstein a nu metal band here, so should we ignore all the conflicting evidence and label Rammstein as nu metal? 63.155.164.33 (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a court case, where "evidence" points to "one true answer" on who murdered someone or something. Its a subjective thing. So we go by what sources say. Multiple reliable sources say its nu metal. I'm sorry you disagree, but the word of reliable sources trumps editors personal opinions. It's not like we need to limit the genre we use. There's no limit is space. It can be added in there right along metal and prog just fine. Sergecross73 msg me 19:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: If you ignore the evidence and go by random whim rather than the sources against nu-metal, you cannot possibly be operating on good faith. Reliable sources DO trump your opinion. You can't pick and choose which sources you like -- look at the overall picture, which clearly goes against your opinion. 63.155.164.33 (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument only makes sense if I was trying to say they were only nu metal, and nothing else. I'm not trying to replace all their genre and just have "nu metal". I'm saying its one of many genre. Multiple reliable third party music sources state it clearly. Sergecross73 msg me 20:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Other genres shouldn't be ignored, but like most things, genre is subjective, it's open to interpretation and it's not written in stone. Nu-metal has a good chunk of sources here, but we're of course accepting of other views here too. Just dig them up from good sources. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

text: No, they are not fringe, they are given by some of the most mainstream sources available - Rolling Stone and Revolver magazines. There are multiple  reliable sources that support it, do not remove unless theres a consensus to remove. Sergecross73 msg me 22:33, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is a consensus to remove it. You're pushing an opinion because it suits your needs when the sources don't support it. This is not a nu-metal album. Mudvayne is not a nu-metal band. Wikipedia is not your personal blog. 71.215.181.115 (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where this consensus is supposed to be. The only other person supporting its removal is another IP that is personally against the genre, and has no valid counterpoint to the fact that there are multiple reliable sources directly and literally supporting it. The other IP also said that the sources don't support it, when they clearly do, which makes me pretty certain that this is just 1 person writing from 2 different IPs. Both the writer and the band refer to the band as nu-metal here, and this article directly lists this album in particular as a nu-metal album. I have no idea why you'd try to reprimand me about this "not being my blog" - I haven't contributed to this article at all other than to re-add sourced info being removed for an invalid reason. the sources obviously and directly support the content. It seems you cannot separate your personal opinions from  what sources say, which unfortunately for your stance, is not how Wikipedia works. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The sources do not support the genre. You are the one who needs to separate his personal opinion from the sources. Mudvayne is not a nu metal band, and L.D. 50 is obviously not a nu metal album. The lad searches the night for his newts (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: See comment above. Can you explain how exactly the source doesn't back the content? You and this IP keep saying this, but it doesn't make sense. How so? Sergecross73 msg me 23:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

text: Per your recent edits, both sources are considered notable from Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. If you have issues, I'd bring it up with them. Otherwise, your edits will be considered vandalism. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolver 

message: === Progressive metal ===
It's pretty clear that this album is progressive metal. Why fight the sources? --68.185.2.134 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find more reliable sources, not these obscure blogs. See WP:RS to see how Wikipedia defines reliable, see WP:ALBUM/SOURCES for some examples of commonly accepted sources. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Horndog Studios is not a blog, it is a corporation. --68.185.2.134 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a comic book company either way. Why are you using a source that self-publishes comics as a serious source for a music genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Regardless, they are not an authority on music genre. They do not meet WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Andrzejbanas, It's not self-publishing. It's a corporation. They predominately publish other people's content. The founder makes some videos and comics for the company, but they mostly put out other people's content. 68.185.2.134 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sergecross73, How is a progressive rock musician not an authority on progressive rock? 68.185.2.134 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring my points. Even if this comic book group was Marvel or Dark Horse or something, that would hardly make them strong sources to comment on something like music genre. Nothing on their page indicates that they have the qualifications or respect or information to be writing about music seriously. Have the writers worked for other music media outputs? What is their background in that area? Find a better source, or take it up with WP:ALBUMS. Also, don't add projects or the genre again until we reach a conclusion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Because they don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. There's many things to check for. Does the source have an established set of editors/staff? What are there credentials for writing? Have the written for other, more mainstream sites? Does the website have an editorial policy? Editorial staff? History of fact checking? You need to make a better case for using this source other than "They're prog musicians, they'd know." Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have an editorial staff and policy. They don't just publish anything. They're very selective in what they publish. 68.185.2.134 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, you aren't showing proof for this information. And you seem to be ignoring our comments about this site is a) not about music. and b) nothing on the site suggests it should be used a s a high quality source for music articles. It is your Burden to find a source that is appropriate and currently what you are saying about how they don't publish anything or are very selective is not backed up by research and is against WP:OR. Unless you have new content to show us, or have specific information regarding the site, I don't think this conversation can continue as you are ignoring our statements, and repeating yourself without showing us where you are getting this information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be going through all these albums and adding/removing genres based on an agenda. Stop that. JuggaloProghead (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly a progressive metal album. Look at the sources. 74.32.173.236 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the proceeding comments, which explain the requirement of having a source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing progressive rock. It has a source. Please stop dismissing sources because you don't agree with them. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you talking to? No ones removed it for that reason. People removed progressive metal because the sources provided were not reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The agenda of pushing nu metal when the sources clearly say progressive. Are you fucking dense? 74.42.44.222 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of "agenda" is that? What would the motivation of such a thing be? Is the Nu Metal Association of America going to pay me every time I add it as source? There's no agenda, it's just following what sources say. Many call it nu metal. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

text: *I'm puzzled by this edit and edit summary by you here. You claim that the source is calling the band, not the album, "nu-metal" drivel, but that doesn't make sense, one, because, its an album review, why would they be talking about an aspect of the band that isn't relevant to the respective album, and two, if you look at the sentence that refers to nu-metal, there's no reason to think its in reference to just the band. The direct quote is Despite titles like "Internal Primates Forever," "-1, Nothing To Gein," "Pharmaecopia" and "(K)Now F(orever)" nothing can improve this pathetic nu-metal drivel.  There's no subject or pronoun that references the band at all. The article just says "this" after listing off a ton of song titles from the album. There's nothing to suggest they meant the band and not the album. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *The sources don't justify the genre's inclusion in the Infobox. Besides, there's only two sources and far more for prog. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is a cop-out answer. Completely invalid. If a reliable source says it, and that's all the explanation you have, then you are completely in the wrong for removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: We've gone through these sources before, NME is not specific, Spin says Future-prog which could mean anything so we can't interpret it, and the Revolver source is talking about the certain parts of the album calling them prog like. There is no doubt in my mind this band digs prog, but we don't have a real source calling them a prog band. The Modern Drummer review really needs a quote as neither you or I can read that page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Prog is shorthand for progressive rock. Stop nitpicking. Also, there are numerous sources describing them as a prog band, and the sources you've tagged do identify this as a progressive rock album. Now stop taking me away from my research into Uriah Heep. Not in the mood for continued shenanigans. JuggaloProghead (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue isn't that they are saying "prog", it's that they don't say the album belongs to the genre. They say things like "future-prog" which you haven't told me what that means and we can't just change what they said either. If you want to keep your edits, then deal with the situation. Otherwise, they will be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are saying that the album belongs to the genre. You're being ridiculous. How does describing the album as having a prog sound -- which is shorthand for progressive rock, not classify the music as progressive rock? What in all manner of fuck constitutes a source then? Does every source for Rush have to say PROGRESSIVE ROCK BAND, PROGRESSIVE ROCK ALBUM? Shorthand isn't conclusive enough for you? You don't know what "prog" means? Prog redirects to progressive rock, ergo, the sources are classifying the album as progressive rock. And how the hell does describing the album as having a prog or progressive sound equal describing progressive rock as an influence? Your edits don't make any sense. NME is very specific, future prog equals progressive rock, and Revolver directly describes the album as progressive rock. Modern Drummer also calls the album a "thinking man's prog" album. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: "Does every Rush album have to have a source?" Yes they do. For someone not familiar with the group, it's not obvious to them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Except there aren't. I've brought up several times that these sources are vague, non-specific and one neither your or I can see the prose and the others don't claim what you are saying and you re-interpret it. You have to match the source, not say "future prog? yeah that's prog rock, it's definately not neo-prog or progressive metal" or any other genre. Unless you address the points I'm giving, I'll assume your next edits like this are not being made in good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Prog. What is the redirect to? Progressive rock. Ergo, the source is calling it a progressive rock album. Why do I have to explain this repeatedly? Why can't you accept what the sources say? JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I completely agree. "Future-prog" could refer to any of the variations of progressive music. This source is not good enough to prove "progressive rock", and "Future-prog" isn't a real genre, so this source isn't really usable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Prog. What does it redirect to? Progressive rock. End of story. JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Ditto. A good example of extraneous genre naming that doesn't match actual terms can be seen on the article I worked on about Glass Swords by Rustie. Take a gander at all the "genres" that are listed. Listing them all in the infobox would not help anyone, not matter if it had 1, 5 or 50 citations behind it. The better the prose and detail a source goes into describing a genre the more prominence it should have. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this isn't an album that has a million genres cited for it, this is an album that has several sources for heavy metal and several sources for progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the last consensus was that nu metal was applicable, because 2 very reliable sources (Revolver (magazine) and Rolling Stone (magazine)) stated it as such. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS - if there is no consensus for removal, then it is not removed. Unless there is a consensus for removal, according to policy, it belongs in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Revolver doesn't explicitly state the album as nu-metal. Where's the Rolling Stone source? And what the hell does user consensus have to do with what the sources actually say? Why does it make sense to keep removing progressive rock despite the sources justifying it, but going with less definitive sources for another genre? JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *Also, stop being so antagonistic towards me. I'm only asking that you work with the sources instead of against them. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, just how closely are you checking your sources. I mean, come on, the Revolver article here is literally titled "10 Nu Metal Albums You Need to Own", and LD 50 is on the list. It doesn't get any more direct than that. Slow down and actually read all of the sources presented. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How closely are you checking the sources? You have to actually read the articles, not just the title. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please stop removing sources instead of discussing. That is vandalism. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if you don't start explaining yourself, you're blocked. You haven't answered a single question, you just throwing baseless accusations. Look at the page history. I haven't removed a source. I haven't even edited the page since you've come and started making your bogus edits. My last edit to the article was last June, to protect the page from vandalism/poorly sourced edits. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are NOT "baseless" accusations - they are facts. And if you have a problem with facts, you lack a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is supposed to be an objective summary of facts and hard information -- not Andrzejbanas' sandbox for vandalism. Andrzejbanas is pushing the poorly sourced edits and you are protecting him to keep the poorly sourced edits because they fit your bias. I have better things to do than listen to this crap. If either of you want to stop behaving like children and accept the sources, come talk to me, otherwise reconsider your path in life. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not because they don't explicitly state what you want them to say. Can you explain how you are not breaking the rules WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states " each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.", saying "future-prog" means prog rock is very much against this rule, ditto with the others which don't explicitly discuss how the album fits the genre you want. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrzejbanas, do you even pay attention to my edits at all? My edits work with the sources, not against them. I don't "want" any genre. Prog redirects to progressive rock. Until you stop being an idiot and understand how sources work, you should cease from editing. The sources clearly back up progressive rock's inclusion. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I removed the sources which were tagged with Template:Notinsource, because the infobox looked like this. Should we really include the sources tagged like this until a conclusion on the talk page is reached? (Note that stuff like "future-prog" and "prog-rock experimentalism" were deemed vague in previous discussions.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vague at all. Prog redirects to progressive rock, and the sources clearly identify the album as progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think Andr just added the tags on an attempt to not edit war, which was good on him. But in actuality, you are correct, the last consensus was that those sources, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS, it shouldn't be changed until a new consensus to add is formed, which certainly has not happened. So you did the right thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TWO PEOPLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS. First rule of sourcing: The source has to state that the album or band is a "[genre] album/band" or for the album/band to have a "[genre] sound" for it to count. And Andr was clearly removing sources that identify the album as progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how many people were there to figure out a consensus as not all articles are going to get that amount of traffic. I believe I went around and asked various groups projects for opinions, and as many people came. You keep suggesting these rules, and I've read your articles (and quoted them) several time. You need a more specific source. Just because you find the term "prog" in an article, doesn't mean it gets the okay. It's not strong enough because it either a) doesn't talk about the albums style as a whole or b) do not specifically state the genre. Spin said "future prog", should I add the following genres "Post-dubstep, Tropical house, Sci-fi trance, and Ecstatic techno" to the article for Glass Swords or can I just pick and choose what the author wanted? No, I have to find a specific source. Two other users here do not seem to have trouble understanding this. The only person stumped by it is you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You're obviously making the wrong decision. Prog is well sourced, and you're contributing to the destruction of Wikipedia's credibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.186.171 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources that prove progressive rock. The current consensus is that the ones presented so far were not good enough. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE SOURCES WHEN THE SOURCES CLEARLY SAY PROG??? AND THE "NU METAL" SOURCES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. YOU'RE PUSHING YOUR AGENDA INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE FACTS. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment already outlines the issue. The sources say prog. Not prog rock. Not all prog music is prog rock. I don't recall for sure, because you're reviving a discussion over a year old, but most sources didn't say prog rock. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive rock/metal 

message: It's pretty clear that this album is progressive metal. Why fight the sources? --68.185.2.134 (talk) 20:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to find more reliable sources, not these obscure blogs. See WP:RS to see how Wikipedia defines reliable, see WP:ALBUM/SOURCES for some examples of commonly accepted sources. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Horndog Studios is not a blog, it is a corporation. --68.185.2.134 (talk) 22:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears to be a comic book company either way. Why are you using a source that self-publishes comics as a serious source for a music genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Regardless, they are not an authority on music genre. They do not meet WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 01:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Andrzejbanas, It's not self-publishing. It's a corporation. They predominately publish other people's content. The founder makes some videos and comics for the company, but they mostly put out other people's content. 68.185.2.134 (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Sergecross73, How is a progressive rock musician not an authority on progressive rock? 68.185.2.134 (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring my points. Even if this comic book group was Marvel or Dark Horse or something, that would hardly make them strong sources to comment on something like music genre. Nothing on their page indicates that they have the qualifications or respect or information to be writing about music seriously. Have the writers worked for other music media outputs? What is their background in that area? Find a better source, or take it up with WP:ALBUMS. Also, don't add projects or the genre again until we reach a conclusion. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

text: Because they don't meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. There's many things to check for. Does the source have an established set of editors/staff? What are there credentials for writing? Have the written for other, more mainstream sites? Does the website have an editorial policy? Editorial staff? History of fact checking? You need to make a better case for using this source other than "They're prog musicians, they'd know." Sergecross73 msg me 14:44, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they have an editorial staff and policy. They don't just publish anything. They're very selective in what they publish. 68.185.2.134 (talk) 22:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You see, you aren't showing proof for this information. And you seem to be ignoring our comments about this site is a) not about music. and b) nothing on the site suggests it should be used a s a high quality source for music articles. It is your Burden to find a source that is appropriate and currently what you are saying about how they don't publish anything or are very selective is not backed up by research and is against WP:OR. Unless you have new content to show us, or have specific information regarding the site, I don't think this conversation can continue as you are ignoring our statements, and repeating yourself without showing us where you are getting this information. Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be going through all these albums and adding/removing genres based on an agenda. Stop that. JuggaloProghead (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly a progressive metal album. Look at the sources. 74.32.173.236 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the proceeding comments, which explain the requirement of having a source. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop removing progressive rock. It has a source. Please stop dismissing sources because you don't agree with them. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are you talking to? No ones removed it for that reason. People removed progressive metal because the sources provided were not reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 23:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

text: The agenda of pushing nu metal when the sources clearly say progressive. Are you fucking dense? 74.42.44.222 (talk) 22:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: What kind of "agenda" is that? What would the motivation of such a thing be? Is the Nu Metal Association of America going to pay me every time I add it as source? There's no agenda, it's just following what sources say. Many call it nu metal. Sergecross73 msg me 22:21, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Progressive metal 

message: *I'm tired of going around in circles with a group of people who claim that Andzejbanas doesn't have an agenda despite removing sources to fit his own opinion. I have to go look for sources on the genres of Uriah Heep (band) - if the sources end up saying that U.H. is a heavy metal band rather than a progressive rock band and I have to change the articles to reflect the sources, I don't want to see any of you changing it back after I make my edits. Just find something better to do than argue about albums that are at least 10 or more years old. I don't care how convinced you are of your opinions - if the sources predominately describe an album by The Clash as a reggae album, that's what we go with. Even if it's agreed that the Clash are a punk band. Same way in that it's agreed that Mudvayne and Uriah Heep play progressive rock, not every album by either group is progressive rock, but if the sources describe an album that way, that's what we go with, not "IT'S OBVIOUSLY NU-METAL". Just stop. Please. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'm puzzled by this edit and edit summary by you here. You claim that the source is calling the band, not the album, "nu-metal" drivel, but that doesn't make sense, one, because, its an album review, why would they be talking about an aspect of the band that isn't relevant to the respective album, and two, if you look at the sentence that refers to nu-metal, there's no reason to think its in reference to just the band. The direct quote is Despite titles like "Internal Primates Forever," "-1, Nothing To Gein," "Pharmaecopia" and "(K)Now F(orever)" nothing can improve this pathetic nu-metal drivel.  There's no subject or pronoun that references the band at all. The article just says "this" after listing off a ton of song titles from the album. There's nothing to suggest they meant the band and not the album. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *The sources don't justify the genre's inclusion in the Infobox. Besides, there's only two sources and far more for prog. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: *That is a cop-out answer. Completely invalid. If a reliable source says it, and that's all the explanation you have, then you are completely in the wrong for removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 23:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: We've gone through these sources before, NME is not specific, Spin says Future-prog which could mean anything so we can't interpret it, and the Revolver source is talking about the certain parts of the album calling them prog like. There is no doubt in my mind this band digs prog, but we don't have a real source calling them a prog band. The Modern Drummer review really needs a quote as neither you or I can read that page. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Prog is shorthand for progressive rock. Stop nitpicking. Also, there are numerous sources describing them as a prog band, and the sources you've tagged do identify this as a progressive rock album. Now stop taking me away from my research into Uriah Heep. Not in the mood for continued shenanigans. JuggaloProghead (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue isn't that they are saying "prog", it's that they don't say the album belongs to the genre. They say things like "future-prog" which you haven't told me what that means and we can't just change what they said either. If you want to keep your edits, then deal with the situation. Otherwise, they will be removed. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they are saying that the album belongs to the genre. You're being ridiculous. How does describing the album as having a prog sound -- which is shorthand for progressive rock, not classify the music as progressive rock? What in all manner of fuck constitutes a source then? Does every source for Rush have to say PROGRESSIVE ROCK BAND, PROGRESSIVE ROCK ALBUM? Shorthand isn't conclusive enough for you? You don't know what "prog" means? Prog redirects to progressive rock, ergo, the sources are classifying the album as progressive rock. And how the hell does describing the album as having a prog or progressive sound equal describing progressive rock as an influence? Your edits don't make any sense. NME is very specific, future prog equals progressive rock, and Revolver directly describes the album as progressive rock. Modern Drummer also calls the album a "thinking man's prog" album. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

text: "Does every Rush album have to have a source?" Yes they do. For someone not familiar with the group, it's not obvious to them. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Except there aren't. I've brought up several times that these sources are vague, non-specific and one neither your or I can see the prose and the others don't claim what you are saying and you re-interpret it. You have to match the source, not say "future prog? yeah that's prog rock, it's definately not neo-prog or progressive metal" or any other genre. Unless you address the points I'm giving, I'll assume your next edits like this are not being made in good faith. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Prog. What is the redirect to? Progressive rock. Ergo, the source is calling it a progressive rock album. Why do I have to explain this repeatedly? Why can't you accept what the sources say? JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I completely agree. "Future-prog" could refer to any of the variations of progressive music. This source is not good enough to prove "progressive rock", and "Future-prog" isn't a real genre, so this source isn't really usable. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at Prog. What does it redirect to? Progressive rock. End of story. JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Ditto. A good example of extraneous genre naming that doesn't match actual terms can be seen on the article I worked on about Glass Swords by Rustie. Take a gander at all the "genres" that are listed. Listing them all in the infobox would not help anyone, not matter if it had 1, 5 or 50 citations behind it. The better the prose and detail a source goes into describing a genre the more prominence it should have. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except this isn't an album that has a million genres cited for it, this is an album that has several sources for heavy metal and several sources for progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Additionally, the last consensus was that nu metal was applicable, because 2 very reliable sources (Revolver (magazine) and Rolling Stone (magazine)) stated it as such. Please read WP:CONSENSUS and WP:NOCONSENSUS - if there is no consensus for removal, then it is not removed. Unless there is a consensus for removal, according to policy, it belongs in the article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that Revolver doesn't explicitly state the album as nu-metal. Where's the Rolling Stone source? And what the hell does user consensus have to do with what the sources actually say? Why does it make sense to keep removing progressive rock despite the sources justifying it, but going with less definitive sources for another genre? JuggaloProghead (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

text: *Also, stop being so antagonistic towards me. I'm only asking that you work with the sources instead of against them. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: On that note, just how closely are you checking your sources. I mean, come on, the Revolver article here is literally titled "10 Nu Metal Albums You Need to Own", and LD 50 is on the list. It doesn't get any more direct than that. Slow down and actually read all of the sources presented. Sergecross73 msg me 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How closely are you checking the sources? You have to actually read the articles, not just the title. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please stop removing sources instead of discussing. That is vandalism. JuggaloProghead (talk) 23:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, if you don't start explaining yourself, you're blocked. You haven't answered a single question, you just throwing baseless accusations. Look at the page history. I haven't removed a source. I haven't even edited the page since you've come and started making your bogus edits. My last edit to the article was last June, to protect the page from vandalism/poorly sourced edits. Sergecross73 msg me 23:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They are NOT "baseless" accusations - they are facts. And if you have a problem with facts, you lack a basic understanding of what an encyclopedia is. An encyclopedia is supposed to be an objective summary of facts and hard information -- not Andrzejbanas' sandbox for vandalism. Andrzejbanas is pushing the poorly sourced edits and you are protecting him to keep the poorly sourced edits because they fit your bias. I have better things to do than listen to this crap. If either of you want to stop behaving like children and accept the sources, come talk to me, otherwise reconsider your path in life. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: They do not because they don't explicitly state what you want them to say. Can you explain how you are not breaking the rules WP:STICKTOSOURCE which states " each statement in the article attributable to a source that makes that statement explicitly. Source material should be carefully summarized or rephrased without changing its meaning or implication.", saying "future-prog" means prog rock is very much against this rule, ditto with the others which don't explicitly discuss how the album fits the genre you want. Andrzejbanas (talk) 16:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Andrzejbanas, do you even pay attention to my edits at all? My edits work with the sources, not against them. I don't "want" any genre. Prog redirects to progressive rock. Until you stop being an idiot and understand how sources work, you should cease from editing. The sources clearly back up progressive rock's inclusion. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: I removed the sources which were tagged with Template:Notinsource, because the infobox looked like this. Should we really include the sources tagged like this until a conclusion on the talk page is reached? (Note that stuff like "future-prog" and "prog-rock experimentalism" were deemed vague in previous discussions.) Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not vague at all. Prog redirects to progressive rock, and the sources clearly identify the album as progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, I think Andr just added the tags on an attempt to not edit war, which was good on him. But in actuality, you are correct, the last consensus was that those sources, and per WP:NOCONSENSUS, it shouldn't be changed until a new consensus to add is formed, which certainly has not happened. So you did the right thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: TWO PEOPLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS. First rule of sourcing: The source has to state that the album or band is a "[genre] album/band" or for the album/band to have a "[genre] sound" for it to count. And Andr was clearly removing sources that identify the album as progressive rock. JuggaloProghead (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter how many people were there to figure out a consensus as not all articles are going to get that amount of traffic. I believe I went around and asked various groups projects for opinions, and as many people came. You keep suggesting these rules, and I've read your articles (and quoted them) several time. You need a more specific source. Just because you find the term "prog" in an article, doesn't mean it gets the okay. It's not strong enough because it either a) doesn't talk about the albums style as a whole or b) do not specifically state the genre. Spin said "future prog", should I add the following genres "Post-dubstep, Tropical house, Sci-fi trance, and Ecstatic techno" to the article for Glass Swords or can I just pick and choose what the author wanted? No, I have to find a specific source. Two other users here do not seem to have trouble understanding this. The only person stumped by it is you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You're obviously making the wrong decision. Prog is well sourced, and you're contributing to the destruction of Wikipedia's credibility.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.186.171 (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide sources that prove progressive rock. The current consensus is that the ones presented so far were not good enough. Sergecross73 msg me 21:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY ARE YOU IGNORING THE SOURCES WHEN THE SOURCES CLEARLY SAY PROG??? AND THE "NU METAL" SOURCES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH. YOU'RE PUSHING YOUR AGENDA INSTEAD OF FOCUSING ON THE FACTS. 74.42.44.222 (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comment already outlines the issue. The sources say prog. Not prog rock. Not all prog music is prog rock. I don't recall for sure, because you're reviving a discussion over a year old, but most sources didn't say prog rock. Sergecross73 msg me 22:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Progressive rock

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on L.D. 50 (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081012051208/http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/04/04-09-03tdc/04-09-03darts-02.asp to http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/04/04-09-03tdc/04-09-03darts-02.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:42, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are they the same? There's a part in the second body paragraph that has a problem. If these two words have the same essential meaning, I think we have a contradiction problem, because Obituary is CLEARLY metal. If they're different, clarify that for me. dannymusiceditor  Speak up!  20:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the source, (here) its from 2003, and honestly, seems to be about The End of All Things to Come. In fact, unless I'm missing it, L.D. 50 isn't mentioned at all. The source is also used to source a few of the band's they mentioned as inspirations - like Porcupine Tree. It looks like anything sourced to this reference should be removed from this article altogether. That would fix the contradiction too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences VS. Inspiration 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on L.D. 50 (album). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040822061147/http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=13 to http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermouth.net/showreview.aspx?reviewID=13
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Stumbled across a new source in my newsfeed today. Another very reliable source, Kerrang, clearly and directly calls it nu metal. Just in case that disruptive editor ever returns... Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, I used another website originally because it was only in the Kerrang magazine. It’s on the Kerrang website too, here. Sergecross73 msg me 21:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another nu metal source 

message: An IP keeps adding "December 1999 – April 2000" and I keep removing it because it's unsourced. Is there any source for this? Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recording timeframe