User talk:Semitransgenic/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Semitransgenic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

TheRingess (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Osho do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew you'd mistakenly reverted my edit. So please ignore my message above. It was just automatically clicked using WP:TW. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Belville4.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Belville4.jpg. The copy called Image:Belville4.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not make further inappropriate personal comments. "Outing" the offline identity of a Wikipedia editor who wishes to remain anonymous is grounds for immediate and indefinite blocking. You've been warned repeatedly and will not be warned again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Again I remind you that the standard is "comment on the edits, not the editors". That is especially true on article talk pages. I've already told you that the correct place to discuss conflict of interest if WP:COIN. Making bad faith accusations against me doesn't help your case. Please try to focus on writing a good article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Techno

(responding to your comments/questions on my user talk page)

Thanks for taking up the cause of being the principal curator of the techno article for a while. You're doing great work! Thanks also for tackling that old material that I recently restored from someone's botched attempt to undo some contentious edits. Even though there's still a lot to be done, you and a couple other regular editors have done a great job bringing the article closer to the standards of today's Wikipedia. When standards were looser and sources were rarely cited, I used to be a very active contributor to the article. But maintenance became too much of a time-suck, as the article keeps attracting an ever-increasing number of anonymous, ill-informed contributors with poor writing skills, a phenomenon which you may have noticed. Also, the knowledge that comes from techno's fan base apparently is rife with folklore and regional pride, and some of that bias even bubbles up into journalism, so you can probably find a reference for just about any claim, if you lower your standards for reliability of sources enough.
Re: May, 909, and house, this is an example of folklore that is really only supported by interviews and magazine articles, both of which tend to have zero fact-checking and a lot of statements made to generate interest and/or drama. Everyone has their own take on what happened. You have to characterize everything in terms of "Atkins claims", "May claims", and so forth. (If you've ever heard May talk, you know he makes a lot of grandiose claims.)
I didn't used to feel this way, but nowadays I wouldn't take anything written about techno music to be gospel. Explicitly attribute to its sources anything even potentially controversial; don't state things as fact, and don't even generalize. For example, "One critic says" with a single reference is better than "Many critics say", regardless of references.
I'm having trouble finding it now, but in private email, a journalist who has been in contact with all of the key Detroit players told me to be especially wary of sources that elevate the role of Eddie Fowlkes. He used to not even be mentioned in the article, but he has a reputation among his peers of being a whiner who feels slighted by historians, so he has long been on a mission to vent his "I was there"/"I'm an originator too" side of the story. The Belleville Three, I guess for the sake of good relations and good publicity, don't contest it, but privately have had some unkind things to say about Fowlkes being a hanger-on in the early days. As time goes on, though, I think it becomes less important to know his exact role in techno's formative years. He was on the Ten Records compilation, which we could say is the first source to brand him a techno artist, so we're only talking about a short period of time before that where his involvement with the scene is questioned. So maybe it doesn't matter.
IIRC, the underage club scene is mentioned in Techno Rebels, although I don't know if it goes into the detail that someone did in that paragraph you're asking about. Only the the first sentence of that paragraph was my doing, and even that may have been an edit of someone else's less well-crafted contribution. I have the book and can look into it if you like. I do recall The Music Institute gets mentioned a lot, but I don't recall seeing info about its contemporaries. To answer your question, I don't know the exact time period. Early and mid-'80s I believe, and ending with the closure of The Music Institute. You might go back through the article history and see who added it.
I feel pretty strongly about the sparse, mechanical, disco-soul song "Techno City" being more techno than electro, and the dense, computery, "No UFOs" being more electro than techno, but neither tune is exclusively one or the other. It's easy to Google and find people pointing to "Clear" (1983) or even "Alleys of Your Mind" (1981) as the first techno songs, and then when you go back that far, still more people start pointing to "Shari Vari", Giorgio Moroder productions, and Kraftwerk songs. The "Some commentators, who believe things are not so clear-cut…" paragraph was my attempt to mitigate what, at the time, seemed like a barrage of edits by people insisting that those older examples are the first techno cuts. So yeah, the "some commentators" really are our fellow Wikipedians! I know it's not kosher, but by merely mentioning those tracks and giving them an air of legitimacy, it was an effective way to pacify the proponents of those theories and discourage sloppy attempts to add those examples back in. It was either that or aggressively police the article, deleting things on a daily basis.
I think we're all more than a bit guilty of wanting to find the oldest something made by a Detroiter (or German) that sounds like what techno eventually turned into, and declare it to be "seminal" or the "first" techno composition. It's all a matter of opinion, and everyone's got one. AFAIK, no music was called simply "techno" in print before Rushton's compilation came out, and we shouldn't be speculating otherwise. The best we can do is characterize other people's claims about what came first as exactly that: speculation.
Re: Juan's MySpace blurb, at least as you quoted it, it appears to have been adapted from something written by a third party, since it refers to "Juan", no? So I wouldn't accept it as having much weight. In any case, I get the impression that naming genres and pointing to "seminal" works is something the Detroit musicians prefer to leave to fans and aspiring journalists & historians. The Detroit guys never seem to have much interest in getting very precise about what kicked things off when; they mainly just care about where and who. :)
Going forward, please give some consideration to adding specific quotations to every reference you cite. Some of the citation templates have a quote field for this purpose, and you can just add a quote after the ones that don't. I've done this in the acid house and Afro/Cosmic music articles, and I think it works well. Besides being of benefit to researchers evaluating the sources, it helps you better formulate the prose, because you have to make sure the statement in the article doesn't misrepresent the quotation.
Thanks again and good luck with the article. I probably won't be very active on it for a while yet. —mjb (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Osho at WP:COIN

Hello Semitransgenic. The editors who comment at WP:COIN often wish to find some path, any path, by which a reasonably neutral article can emerge, and we are usually not so concerned to reward or punish specific editors. You do seem to have some knowledge in this area, and thus you could contribute to making a better article. It is very tiresome to look at a lot of diffs, and it is sometimes quicker to try to figure out who has some ideas that might make the article better. If you believe that Jalal prevents you from making the article better, can you be specific? Can you give an example of an improvement that Jalal will not allow you to make? Note that WP:COIN has a suggested limit of 200 words on comments, and you have given extremely lengthy comments that go over the limit. If you can point us to a specific issue, it would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Techno

What are precursors to techno, if you deny european electronic music was it? Or do you on the side of pov synth-made music can't have influence from other synth music just cos of the fact some two genres use futuristic synthetized melodies? I'm really much interested in it. If you ne answer, i won't mind. Thanks. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Studioshot.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Studioshot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Studioshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Studioshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Reasonshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reasonshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Album covers

I noticed you uploaded a number of album covers to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that if you do not own the rights to the artwork, you cannot license it as a self-published work. Album artwork is usually copyrighted by the album publisher or artist. Just64helpin (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Photographed derivatives of the artwork are still affected by the original copyright holder. Just64helpin (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I've corrected the license templates to reflect non-free use. Some of the images have already been uploaded to Wikipedia, however. Just64helpin (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
The previously-uploaded images are used in the articles about the albums, i.e. Computer World and Computer Games (album). Please note though that a fair use rationale would be needed for their use in the techno article. Just64helpin (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose the clear-cut way would be to use the "upload a new version of this file" option in the image page. However, the existing rationale for the Computer Games image specifically points out its low resolution, which is in keeping with the non-free album licensing. If you use the "upload a new version of this file" option, please make sure to specify in the image description field why a larger resolution is needed (in a encyclopedic context) and change the "resolution" field in the rationale. Just64helpin (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
In case you've forgotten, the images still need fair use rationales for use in the techno article. Just64helpin (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for adding the rationale. However, you seem to have added rationale to the duplicate Kraftwerk and George Clinton images rather than the previously-uploaded ones. Just64helpin (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
I also noticed that you uploaded a third Computer World image. Would you care to explain this? Just64helpin (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
The duplicate George Clinton image is exactly the same file as the one used the Computer Games article. Since you uploaded the non-blurry image directly into George_Clinton-Computer_Games_(album_cover).jpg, there is no need to use the other one. I also moved your rationale there. Just64helpin (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TofflerFuture.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TofflerFuture.JPG. 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 Wikipedia articles 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Studioshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Studioshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reasonshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reasonshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kraftwerk-computer-world.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kraftwerk-computer-world.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:TofflerFuture.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:TofflerFuture.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Techno sound

To clarify my earlier edit, WP:MOS states that a header should not start with "the" unless it is part of a proper noun. Is "The Sound" really a proper noun used to describe the sound of Detroit techno? Just64helpin (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Detroit sound" would have the same effect as "The sound" or any phrase beginning with "the". Just64helpin (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
"The Detroit sound" is not a proper noun, and this is the point of this discussion. Proper nouns would be The Matrix, The Beatles, etc. Treating a phrase as if it were proper noun does not make it so. Simply reverting edits without actually attempting to come to an agreement is not the way to proceed. WP:3RR exists for a reason. I see no reason to treat the techno article differently from all the other articles that omit "the", even when it "seems odd". I'm sure you are aware on the policy relating to personal attacks as well. Just64helpin (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps I jumped to conclusions -- I had assumed you went ahead and reverted the edit after you contacted me. Please ignore my 3RR-related comments. Just64helpin (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] acousmatic

Hi. I was actually just adding the partner tag to Acousmatic music, as there was already a merge tag at Acousmatic when I first saw it (last night). I don't know anything about the topics themselves. The admin Hyacinth added the merge tag originally.

Also, on a more abstract/general note, there is no requirement to start a talkpage thread for merges, when adding merge tags (see Wp:Merge#How to merge pages). Only when there is a likelihood/possibility of disagreement/complication, is it necessary to have a discussion; just boldly merging articles is allowed, if you stumble upon articles with merge tags that should obviously be merged (perhaps the person who added the tags was just tentatively raising the possibility, or they simply didn't have the expertise/time to do it themselves, so tagged it for the next person who came along). Anyway, that's all abstract rambling :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, move acousmatic to acousmatic sound (which only has one edit, so you can just move it (Special:MovePage/Acousmatic) on top). Or ask at the discussion page first, if you're unsure. :)
They need to refer more clearly to each other though, and avoid repetition where possible.
The first option is to add a clearer summary style.
The second option is to merge them (under whatever title), in order to have a single more-developed article. All the sources/reading/external links are duplicated between the articles, so it would seem to be a good candidate for merging. There's nothing wrong with an article being 75% about a subtopic.
It all boils down [it always seems to me] to the Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. In this case, Mergism vs Separatism. I tend to favour mergism, as being a step along a path towards an end goal of featured article status, and also a better focus/impetus for collaborative editing. But, sometimes the short/concise articles are good to find, too; both for ease of reading and editing. I'll leave it all up to you :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic Art Music

Don't you dare merge Electronic Art Music with Electronic Music. We came up with the "art" name fair and square. Now real life books and articles are starting to use EAM because of our work here on this page. We are using wikipedia to change the world and revise history to a better view. Please don't interfere or question us. Who cares if people and the media only use phrases like Electronic Music or Dance Music? This is our encyclopaedia, written by us. As long as we can find a written article in a publication to back us up, there's no problem! Electronic Dance Music and Electronic Art Music - we invented it and we're proud. Please don't turn this into another Space Music or Alice Bailey. Thank you for stepping down and stopping from pursuing this move any further, it will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaha303 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please direct you objection to the discussion page on the matter. Please present your case in the appropriate context. The term is not unique to Wikipedia, therefore was not invented here as you seem to think. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


Hello, Semitransgenic. You have new messages at Prom3th3an's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

Hi. Just a pointer (feel free to delete afterwards) to WP:ARCHIVE, which details the preferred method of archiving talkpages. (Basically: copy the contents to a subpage, such as User talk:Semitransgenic/Archive 1, and add a link to that, at the top of this page. or other alternatives listed there) :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Citations. I'm not positive. I'll point to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and let you read/interpret. My guess would be that you're doing it correctly, based on your explanation, and if you're actively thinking about the issue; it's the people that don't think (and the controversial topics), that the policies/guidelines are codified [and proliferating] for! Generally we can just use Wikipedia:Trifecta ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)