User talk:Bakemono

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi. When you modified the Kouta Hirano page you didn't leave something in the edit summary field. As such, I had no idea that you were fixing an error. Our vandalism bot flagged it and I reverted because I didn't have any information on the contrary. It's a good idea to add to the summary each time :) Thanks! Tawker 18:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So, yes, there is consensus for Kouta Hirano now. But did you get consensus for the ruby characters? WhisperToMe 02:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I heard ruby characters aren't even seen on the Japanese Wikipedia. I'm afraid that we will have to take out the ruby characters. WhisperToMe 02:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 AMA request 2 Your VandalProof Application 3 Techno-funk and Neuro-step :o) 4 ?

[edit] AMA request

A malicious and extremely uncivil vandal, that's continually editing/vandalizing/posting anonymously under a changing IP address (usually starting with 84.44.*.*), has been purposefully removing factually sound information from the aforementioned Wiki-article -- I consider this vandalism; however, since I don't know whether Wikipedia specifically does or not, so as not to violate the Three-revert rule, I've been as careful as possible to not revert more than three times per day, despite it being counteraction against evident vandalism. I've tried amicably engaging said user/IP address numerous times regarding the dispute -- even after his initial post to me was nothing but insults (some I have, admittedly, returned in kind out of complete and utter frustration) -- to which attempts this person has never once responded with anything more than further insults and excuses as to why they won't address the issue at hand (please note User_talk: Stevekeiretsu). This back-and-forth has continually gotten nowhere, and has, in fact, become much worse -- the user's only grown increasingly hostile (to the point of actual threats against me). Moreover, in an apparent attempt to 'get me back,' he also went and blatantly vandalized two articles I'd had previous involvement with (namely, Cryptic Audio & Kouta Hirano). I ask you, please, for immediate involvement before this escalates any further (if that's possible).

I could elaborate on the entire issue and dispute surrounding this already factually flimsy article, but it would probably be easiest to simply read the discussion comments. The short and skinny of it, though, is this vandal/anonymous IP person is completely unwavering on his personal, unfounded definition of what he considers "Neurofunk." As User: Stevekeiretsu correctly stated in our discussion on his page, he's attempting to turn subjective opinion into objective fact. Conveniently, though, he doesn't feel the need to justify this unwavering subjective opinion with evidence in any way. Evidently, because he posts it, it's an automatic truism, and any attempt to add something other than what he wrote gets edited out (in page-long, non-summarized fashion, I might add) immediately. More or less, he's not only playing article-God, but also vandalizing the article by removing information that should definitely be included.

Truthfully, I (along with many others) feel this shouldn't be its own article, but a subcategory in the Techstep article -- since, effectively, that's what Neurofunk is: a subgenre of Techstep. However, that's another issue entirely. I'm just trying to be rid of this persistent vandal that continually edits out pertinent information.

In any event, I'll be ready and waiting for any help and/or solution you can give me. Thanks in advance!

Hi Bakemono,

Sorry to hear this is happening with 84. I'll give it until Sunday, and then proceed with action if he doesn't cease and desist. In the meantime, I'd suggest looking into the wiki: AbuseReports page (go to search engine), though I'll be pursuing this next week.

All best, WormwoodJagger 17:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Bakemono,

I've put in a request, but have not heard back from them -- must be a logjam. I think it would be very helpful if you did as well. All best, WormwoodJagger 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

-- Bakemono 13:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Bakemono, I'm Steve Caruso from the Association of Members' Advocates. I'm sorry to hear about your problem with vandalism. :-( I'm writing to inform you that we have recieved your request, and that we are currently in the process of finding you a suitable Advocate. You should be hearing from us soon. In the meantime, be sure to read through the AMA pages here at Wikipedia to get more aquainted with the process of Advocacy and what to expect. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your VandalProof Application

Dear Bakemono,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. - Glen 14:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Techno-funk and Neuro-step :o)

Hey man,

Yeah I'd completely forgotten I'd waded into that argument/discussion. I was trying to point out that its a very blurry line, and that all of DnB in general borrows heavily from a funk influence. Essentially I agree with you as I've never really understood the difference between the two terms.

I do think there are tunes which are far more techy, and other ones which are far more funky (i'm listening to Flightpath by Ed Rush & Opical right now, which I was going to say seemed v. techy, but its got a very funky underlaying bassline too). I think the problem is that while some tracks may have a more tech feel, and some a more funky feel, there are also plenty of tunes that have both elements in abundance. You're right, the dividing line is impossible to define.

I think people tend to like the terms because there are people that tend to prefer the funkier tracks (like me) and others that prefer the techy type tracks. People naturally like to form groups and will do so over the smallest of differences (even a red team vs a blue team). So people with different tastes in DnB will naturally want to identify with others with similar tastes and distinguish themselves from those with different tastes, even if, as you correctly point out, the difference is impossible to conretetely define! (see Group_(sociology) to see what I mean)

Another thing you are right about is that Uni work is more important than this Wikipedia thing! Study hard man, I've gotta start my dissertation v soon. Good luck with your work :)

Tom Michael - Mostly Zen (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ?

hey, bakemono: lets work out a deal because its between you and i. reverting leads nowhere. i wont give up this article 4ver, and you wont, so if you´re willing, we do this together ´cause no one is interested in making contributions anyway. no more offenses and agression, otherwise, i´ll just keep up the fun.

rob.