Well, he is the owner of the other label credited in the notes, so I let's see what he has to say. I've requested his input.

Please look here, he did it again. WTF?

I told him to respond and explain himself. I know that he got the message.

after reading words like "he wants to show that his shitty project is so important and cool......." from gelordum user, i dont want reply on this report, due this show a his opinition about me and Moloch.
So, how he can be objective ?
im REALLY bored to see that someone (gelordum in fact) ALWAYS try mix personal brain problems and metal archives updates.
this user does not correct some mistakes, he just always try to show his opinition to me PERSONALLY and my project. Is it normal behavior?
if this user can not be objective they he just can fuck off.
i always updated my band personally and bands that i released on my label.
who know more about my band and about my releases ? me or unknown user ?
so, as a label owner i know better which updates to do.

Agendas aside, he has provided proof from the other label associated with the split - at least enough so that we know what is listed on the back cover. This isn't just a petty matter of fighting over which band name is listed first on the release page, the physical copies of this thing can only be one way, and whichever band is on the A side is going to be the one we list first.

That said, from what I understand, this is a collaborative release between two labels. Are there actually two versions floating around with the sides swapped? Someone isn't telling the truth here either way.

Guys, can you please do something with this Inhuman Nameless idiot? He is still renaming I Shalt Become split album without any proofs of his words.

gelordum - idiot its you, the same like piece of shit - your slut mother.

im wait a proof from you about name of this split. why you think that this split have a name "i shalt become / moloch" ?
where you saw this ?

side A, B - OK.
but what about name of split ?

proof: http://depressiveillusions.com/items/vi ... -split-7ep
name of split "Moloch / I Shalt Become"
split was made, released and designed by me and my label, so i know how to name this release.
NOT YOU - gelordum. you are just annoying loser, that try show self-ambitions in all this "updates".

What a shitstorm and butthurt, lol. So, now you're writing, that I Shalt Become is on the side A? And what the hell is wrong with you, Dyatel? Look on the back cover and stop renaming this release, idiot. On your site you can write anything you want, stupid poser.

А про маму, Дятел, мы обязательно поговорим при встрече

its not argument.
no name of the split on the back cover.
on the back cover just logos and names of the BANDS.

name of split Moloch / I Shalt Become.

Proof 1: back cover.
Proof 2: report by the owner of the primary label.
Proof 3: primary label is naming this split as "I Shalt Become / Moloch".
Proof 4: confirmation by Inhuman_Nameless that I Shalt Become is on the side A.

I hope this is enough for moderators to make a conclusion.

we talk about NAME of split.
here are no name of the split on back cover.
just 2 logos and band names in up and down.
On the official DIR label site, name of the split (in catalogue): Moloch / I Shalt Become.

Naming conventions for splits on MA are such that if there is no proper name itself, we go with the participating bands, in order of appearance. So it seems that the I Shalt Become song is the A-side and the name for the entry will therefore be I Shalt Become / Moloch. Do not change it back, Inhuman_Nameless.

And quit it with the personal attacks. If you want to insult each other, do so via a private channel, don't fill up this thread with your childish bickering. Consider this a warning, both of you.

a few reports called Orzie's lineup additions into question:
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 3/show/all
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 4/show/all
http://www.metal-archives.com/report/vi ... 6/show/all

looking at his mod history, I noticed he also adds individual artists' info that could be added in one go (location, dob, photo) in two or three consecutive ones instead:
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/Orzie

also, a few days ago I noticed TheReactor adds lyrics one by one, but he's new so probably doesn't know...
http://www.metal-archives.com/users/TheReactor

warned both

can we do something about beldaroh666? got sick of his e-mails that he sent to hundreds of people where he was telling us to "suck his dick review my album bitch you are my bitch" and now he's taken to sending private messages on MA.

He was actually banned before and made a new account. Banned again.

I'm going to touch on this issue with her.

Every album cover that I upload is a scan of my physical copy that I resize to around 500x500, all of which are still pretty good quality-wise given the limitations of the site's file sizes. I've noticed recently that she is taking my perfectly fine scans and resizing them down to around 300x300 which then makes them look like a downgrade in quality.

Some examples (which I have gone back and re-uploaded the covers) are:

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/De ... Rot/472270 (her replacement)
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Ab ... ent/405321 (her replacement)
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Ev ... ils/157872 (her replacement)
http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/At ... ing/174777 (her replacement)

I'm willing to bet that there are more covers like this that she is doing this to, these are just a few that I've found recently.

Ugh, she was warned about a year ago about pointlessly changing cover art.

I've told her to explain herself in this thread.

Diamhea said that there is no reason to have such big album covers, that smaller ones are better and more like the real album covers instead of having real life size covers.

Also
Sent by Azmodes
It appears the dude thinks huge real-life photos are preferable to actual covers images. -_-

Do you mind showing where I actually said that? Either way, it wouldnt be worth going around resizing everything.

I think you misunderstood me there. That was in reference to Viral thinking that photographies of actual copies are preferable to clean cover images. It doesn't necessarily relate to image quality or size itself.

It's possible she was referring to this:

Which, again, is relating to what Azmodes was explaining to you: that ugly photos of real-world products aren't okay.

Now, obviously the clearer the image, the better. Bigger images (as long as they're decent quality; NOT awful photographs) are always preferable to smaller ones, because they depict an image's content in a clearer fashion than smaller ones.

I'd assume that last paragraph would go without saying...

since this came up, are "cover-only" images always preferable, no exceptions? there are some old demos on the archives that have the entire tape foldout, or sometimes also include the tape itself. or, some limited "other version" 7"s have a photo of the actual (usually coloured) vinyl half-emerging from the sleeve... should they be hunted down and cropped? even if the "proper" cover scan is on the "mother" CD/digital version?

That's probably a good question. I remember distinctly, this was one of the very first questions I had the night the other versions feature went live back in May 2014. Morrigan told me that we shouldn't defer to "collage" types images with the tape laid out with the unfolded j-card. I see this causing some issues, since we only have 50kb of image size to work with, trying to fit all of that (legibly) in a single image can be challenging. I'm usually working off of Discogs, so if I run into a tape release that features a differently cropped cover, I usually upload that, so long as there isn't a massive image quality trade-off. I don't think it is the end of the world if child versions of various formats inherit the basic cover art image, so long as the artwork really is the same. Could use some more input here, but either way I don't think it is something particularly worth "hunting down," instead just fixed as you come across them.

^Pretty much. Maybe someday, we'll have a feature for multiple images for each release, but for now a clear front cover of the respective version is always preferred.

Yeah, I was referring to this:

Diamhea wrote:
Better look at what? The sticker that says "Back on Black?"

It's the same artwork, and we always prefer a front-on scan of the cover above all, just like we have certain preferences concerning band photos and what is/isn't a better image. These shots have glare, a bunch of background clutter, and the angle is unappealing when viewed on the otherwise streamlined album page.

Yes, we get that. This still doesn't explain why you are replacing good quality cover scans with SMALLER scans. There is no difference in the images you are changing other than the fact that yours are far lower quality/size.

Thought was not supposed to be so big like you and Azmodes said before was all. Just thought you wanted them to be smaller and not so big.

Definitely not. Please try and focus on more constructive edits, which you certainly have the capability of executing. Continue helping me fill in other versions.

Gorilla1969 wants to know why he was banned. Shall I forward his email to one of you guys, or do you want me to be the messenger?

He was banned for blacklist evasion, the rejection message for his submission of Hotzikara said so, but I guess he didn't read it.

OK man. I'll link him to your post.

It was sloppy research on his part, not deliberate deceit (most probably, anyway). I've already dealt with this issue and emailed him.

Guys, watch this moron please: http://www.metal-archives.com/users/MetalAggressor

If you find him adding any fishy looking lineups, let me know. He had amassed hundreds of points in only a couple of weeks adding nothing but guesswork lineups.

http://www.metal-archives.com/users/fog_human

Added a guesswork line-up to a release that wasn't even by the listed band (Black Forest). The guy is long gone, but someone should look at his other line-up additions and clean things up.

Warned.

http://www.metal-archives.com/albums/Mg ... ity/524495

^ Unconfirmed release date+artwork not yet revealed.

Deleted and warned.