Talk:Where Lovers Mourn

message: :Image:Draconian where lovers mourn.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) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Draconian where lovers mourn.jpg

message: If anybody is curious about the genre, please read this entry first. Genre bickering is a completely uninteresting endeavor, and wastes too much time. There should be more effort focused on improving this article than what the genre of the freaking album is. People with so much passion to slap [potentially their own] labels onto other people's music are totally missing the point. Anyways, I'll get right to the point of my statement, since edit summaries and invisible messages *cough* are unsiutable mediums to illustrate these points, while the relevant talk pages are.
While determining genres of music albums (as well as in more important parts of this encyclopedia and life in general), all parties involved should be cooperative with one another. That does not involve putting down in the genre field what one thinks the album's genre is out of the blue.
Now I will explain the faultiness of the sources presented. The For the Greater Good blog, I believe, falls under the following from WP:IRS: 
From this perspective, does For the Greater Good blog qualify as a reliable source on Wikipedia? Is the author a professional journalist or a professional in their field? Is their work in the relevant field previously published by third parties? Here is the area to make the case for it.
Also, there is sputnikmusic. This source does have some backing to be used on Wikipedia. However, the only sources that can be used from sputnikmusic are reviews done by staff and emeritus, and not by users. For more information, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Review sites.
One last thing, I want to touch on invisible text. The reason why invisible text exists is to give other editors advice on how to go about editing the respective page. Invisible text does not exist to be used for pushing one's own point of view. The recent edit exchanges have treaded on the principle that Wikipedia should not be disrupted to prove a point, especially such a frivolous one. I don't want to waste anymore of my time reverting flippant genre edits. Feel free to add any comments, questions, or concerns here. Backtable Speak to meconcerning my deeds. 08:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genre categorizing