User talk:Semitransgenic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.


IDM article[edit]

But I don't see any tags that say citation needed. Are you talking about parts of the article that no one tagged that need references? That's the only thing that I can think about that you're talking about. Let me know. Lighthead (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I re reviewed your message. I think that that's what you're talking about, but please confirm. Thanks. Lighthead (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
You know what, that's an interesting thought, and that really makes sense. Yeah, because those citation tags really make an article look ugly and messy. Wow! I learned something new! Lighthead (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, to be perfectly honest, I see them both as ugly. But the one I see as worse(r) is the one we both definitely don't like. I mean I guess it all boils down to personal taste really, you know because they're both different styles of approaching Wikipedia. You probably see it the same way, I'm sure. Lighthead (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
But just as a side note, another reason I find the top banners as ugly is because when I'm flipping through articles, or when I add an article to my watchlist, its because its an article that I'm interested in. And to find out that the article has issues, gives me this, "oh, no!" feeling. So, it's not like if I find it ugly because I think its not necessary. Lighthead (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
You're preaching to the choir; I'm a creative type. I'm not logical at all. That's what my main problem is here on Wikipedia, that I'm not tech savvy. Lighthead (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

User subpage templates[edit]

You might know about this since you've been here awhile. Do you know where I could find a list of templates related to user subpages? I've asked more or less random people here on Wikipedia, but I've only gotten an indifferent response. You know how it is here on Wikipedia, you have to know somebody in order for them to actually do something for you. Well anyway, thanks. Hope to hear from you. Lighthead (talk) 20:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

You know, like banners (kind of like what we were talking about) at the top of the user subpage telling you what kind of page it is. Like for example whether its an essay, a sandbox; you know templates that I'm assuming you sometimes have to put at the top of those pages designating what that page is about. I pretty much just want to know if there is a list (somevere here on vikipedia) relating specifically to user subpage templates. All I could find were templates for user pages but not user subpages. If you still don't understand please let me know. Thanks. Lighthead (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

So, do you have to put those templates on top of those user subpages? I'm assuming from what you said that it's not a requirement. Let me know. Lighthead (talk) 21:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

But there are situations when you have to use them (as I understand); like for example, like I said, essays, and sandboxes. I want to create a page where I can store templates that I've created (when I say that I've created, take that with a grain of salt, ha ha..), and take them when I need them. I just don't want to do something, and get fired for doing it (..from the collective, as it were). Ha ha ha. Lighthead (talk) 21:52, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the page. I just created it right now. Check it out: User:Lighthead/repository. Lighthead (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Non-Free rationale for File:L430xH465 jpg Schaeffer big-2eb70.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:L430xH465 jpg Schaeffer big-2eb70.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under Non-Free content criteria but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a Non-Free rationale.

If you have uploaded other Non-Free media, consider checking that you have specified the Non-Free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


"Dearth": A scarcity or lack of something.[1] That seems to be the opposite of what you were trying to say.[2]   Will Beback  talk  23:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Spaced out (Space age .. / isn't actually NEW - at least not to someone.. whom (obviously) "knows"[edit]

ie: [quote] from the SPACEAGE discussion page itself: Taking it from the top:

Space music, also spelled spacemusic, is an umbrella term used to describe music that evokes a feeling of contemplative spaciousness.[1] [2] [3][4] Space music can be found within a wide range of genres.[5][6][7][8] It is particularly associated with ambient, new age, and electronic music. Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music. [9][10][11][12]

the definition provided here stems from one internet source, which is a commercial radio show - in fact it's possible that there may be a WP:UNDUE issue with the amount of emphasis placed upon this one source - however I note that none of the citations explicitly supports either point 1)Space music can be found within a wide range of genres or point 2)Some music from the western classical, world, Celtic, traditional, experimental and other idioms also falls within the definition of space music. Are there sources that demonstrably show both of these statements to be true? If not this is one of the first examples of synthesis that needs to be highlighted. Semitransgenic (talk) 21:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Try doing a google search.. (all together) on the 'following' (video, audio & / or music) KEYWORD TAGS:

Ethereal Surreal Gothic Analogue Floating Surround Sound Echoes

And look.! On youtube-- there IS at least ONE video (accoustically) showing.? OMG- just that effect. And in OLD STYLE "analogue" multi_facetted "surround_sound" too.!

oo7 says - Don't just let Ur Dreams(ES)cape - ...

p.s.. U may (also) be delighted in reading the "more-info" section there (& it's related comments). QUIX4U (talk) 04:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Adam Werritty[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Adam Werritty, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article that does not provide sufficient context to identify its subject. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Adam Werritty[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Adam Werritty has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


Check it yourself. 80%, not 890%. More than "little attention".


S — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


You say "discuss on article talk do not revert", yet didn't do so yourself. I'm just about happy now, with the words "received a little attention at the end of the meeting" (I'd be happier with "received attention at the end of the meeting"). But I don't see any gain to me from getting your back up even more, so shall we call a truce now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

PS: newest mods meet with my approval and reflect his statement, 10 mins ago, in the house. It's a pleasure to wiki with you. S — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


re: widely known as an "adviser The may have been mistaken by others as an advisor, but his is not an advisor unless he is on govt payroll. Replace my comments. In future, "discuss on article talk do not revert". Cheers. S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


Symbol support vote.svg This user helped promote the article Synthpop to good article status.

Nice one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


Please move back Trance (music) to Trance music. It appears to me that the majority of other pop genres use this format. Note that WP:DAB explicitly says, "If there are several possible choices for disambiguating with a class or context, use the same disambiguating phrase already commonly used for other topics within the same class and context, if any. " Thus, since we can choose between the two names, we need to choose the one consistent with other topics of the same type. Now, I'm willing to engage in a discussion about the issue, but page moves on highly read pages should not be done without consensus of other editors. The correct thing for you to do is to move the article title back, then start a Requested Move discussion and see what the consensus of other editors is. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Dubtronica[edit]

I have removed the prod tag you placed on Dubtronica, as per policy an article that has been discussed at AfD – as this one has been twice (links are on the talk page) – is permanently ineligible for deletion via prod. Compliance with policy is the only reason I did this; I have no comment on the merits of deletion. If you still wish to pursue deletion, feel free to open another AfD. I highly recommend going over WP:BEFORE as well as the arguments made in the previous AfDs before doing so. —KuyaBriBriTalk 15:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


What was inaccurate about my techno description? I wrote that techno has a 4/4 rhythm (which it has, and is sourced), that it is generally instrumental and percussive (also true and supported by sources in the text), and that it often abandons the structures of Western harmony, supported by a source in the main text. What was inaccurate about it? --&レア (talk) 10:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Techno, though, is by nature highly repetitive. Anyway, would "Techno music usually follows a 4/4 rhythm, and is often instrumental and repetitive in nature. Synthesizers and drum machines are commonly used in techno music, and, placing more of an emphasis on rhythm than melody, techno often abandons many of the harmonic structures of traditional Western music" or something similar work? I can take out the "repetitive", but it is sourced in the text, and, additionally, it is a matter of fact that techno music is really very repetitive, far more than lot of electronic music (in many cases, the track repeats a short riff over and over and over again right until the end, maybe with a few variations throughout the piece).--&レア (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


please stop putting brostep back. It is not backed up by the citations given and is misleading. I am not the only person on the discussion page who thinks this.Matsuiny2004 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC).

It says clearly in the article that 12th planet is the godfather of US style dubstep which we are calling brostep. Therefore he is the godfather of brostep. Bassnectar is called brostep and therefore can be considred a pioneerMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the first citation which in the brostep section which does mention brostep, but does not explicitly state or imply that skrillex is brostep so by your logic that should be deleted tooMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

12th planet has that aggressive style with the distorted metal sounding bassMatsuiny2004 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Techno intro[edit]

Well done for the brilliant intro. Informative, concise, and very accurate - bravo.

Thank you for taking the time to write it.

Best wishes,

--&レア (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

"False BLP claims"[edit]

When you head a talk page section with the phrase False BLP claims it is probably a good idea firstly to identify the BLP claims that you are discussing and secondly to explain with some care why you believe them to be false (as opposed to, say, mistaken or disputed). Otherwise it might seem that you were indulging in mud-slinging. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Semitransgenic. You have new messages at's talk page.
Message added 15:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armstrong lead[edit]

This was discussed in TALK and given several days for comment, no editors raised objections. Dimspace (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Here> was discussed and got the opinions of several editors including some who are regular editors on cycling page. All in favour, no opposed. Dimspace (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Techno drama[edit]

FYI: User talk:Qwyrxian#Techno music Pagemjb (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:New Religious Movements, Cults, and Sects has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grrahnbahr (talkcontribs) 23:24, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving the template while the TfD is ongoing broke the link to the TfD discussion. I've attempted to restore with an anchor. Hopefully there won't be any underlying technical issues due to the intervening name change. In general, it's probably best not to rename something that may be subject to deletion while it's still being discussed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the note, that discussion looks done to me, with no consensus to delete being the outcome. I'm also not sure why this deletion discussion should supersede other matters: such as the page getting locked, and the fact that editors were discussing template renaming at the same time as someone proposed the deletion. Also, the deletion proposal now relates to the preceding template configuration, why not leave it listed as such, and copy the latest configuration to a new template called NRMs? Semitransgenic talk. 10:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
No problem. I agree that it shouldn't be deleted. I just thought it better to keep the discussion together because the existing TfD template was modified to that effect. My main concern is that there may be underlying technical issues with TfD templates listing a deletion discussion for something that no longer exists.
I had actually thought the template had been locked prior to the TfD.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Merging articles[edit]

I think you need to add the templates to one or other of the talk pages - but not both - to make sure the discussion takes place on one page, not two. There is guidance at WP:MERGE. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Semitransgenic. You have new messages at Talk:Osho.
Message added 14:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Phase music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Duckworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Wendy Carlos[edit]

The paragraphs you deleted were sourced, relevant, and the result of consensus. If you have an issue with them, then please bring it up in talk rather than just deleting them. —Chowbok 15:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignore me, I'm an idiot. I should never go on Wikipedia before I've had coffee. I rolled back my changes. I'm very sorry for the mixup.—Chowbok 15:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Dubstep and ketamine[edit]

Just curious, what was your gripe with this paragraph? It seems like this article could be used as a source even if the paragraph was written in a slightly misleading way (the ketamine connection didn't come along til a lot later). - filelakeshoe 11:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Danceking5_and_personal_attacks._Again. - filelakeshoe 14:33, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

lol, you can't cite someone for edit warring when you're the one doing it and I'm the one repairing the damage, especially when I asked you to discuss it THREE times. I'm not the only person removing the link, you're the only person who keeps putting it back despite being given an explanation why it isn't acceptable. Keep right on truckin' with those accusations though. EDIT To clarify, removing the link in general, not this particular time. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion for Prometheus[edit]

I saw you've been editing the opening line of the Prometheus article, and I thought I'd suggest a change:

Standing by a river, a humanoid alien consumes a dark liquid as his ship departs the planet.

Just a suggestion to consider. Coastside (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Suggestion for Prometheus[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Semitransgenic. You have new messages at Coastside's talk page.
Message added 10:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Semitransgenic! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

Feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can participate!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong[edit]

Oops, that was the wrong template entirely. What I meant to do was notify you of this. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:AN3#User:Semitransgenic reported by User:Adjwilley (Result: ) it seems that you broke 3RR on this article. It would be to your advantage to join the discussion at AN3 and promise to stop edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest and reuse of content via CC BY-SA 3.0[edit]

Dear Semitransgenic. As we have been over this road before, please stop addressing me as "Joe" and try to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I am an objective archivist and also an x female employee of Joseph Nechvatal. I worked for him from 2008 - 2011. I have helped develop many wiki pages from time to time on many cultural subjects as my contributions page indicates. See Minóy for example of a recent contribution I developed based on Dr. Nechvatal's historic recollections as a founder of Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine. If you don't like him personally, or the way Dr. Nechvatal expresses himself as I record it into wikipedia, that is up to you, but please stop making false accusations against me! Given our record of conflict and your prior false claims against me, I hope that you see the benefits or resisting such attacks. Of course I had access to Dr. Nechvatal and his manuscripts and books, and I know well his history with Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and otherwise. I am happy to give citations when I can about Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and Joseph Nechvatal's work and any other subject I feel confident in contributing to. Indeed when I worked for him, Dr. Nechvatal gave me material that has appeared here based on his research. It is through his research that I have been able to develop the Noise Music page from what it was (rather pathetic) before he and his previous employee took interest in the subject. Nechvatal has developed the history and scope of Noise Music himself independently of Wikipedia. It is I who transfer some of it to Wikipedia. In brief, I am happy to share some of the historical material I had access to from Dr. Nechvatal on Wikipedia, but he does not directly post here. I do. And I am an objective professional. As I no longer work for him, there is no Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. I will give citations where I can per your demands. OK? Valueyou (talk) 12:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have good reason to doubt your claim. You might want to comment on this.
Using wikipdedia for SEO purposes and as a self-promotion tool is tolerable if the sourcing holds up.
Content developed on wikipedia can be used externally if the correct licensing is in place. Multiple editors were involved in the creation of the article, there can be no claim to ownership.
To suggest that "Nechvatal has developed the history and scope of Noise Music himself independently of Wikipedia" when multiple sources have published work on the subject - which we cite - sounds absurd.
It will be necessary to contact the publisher of Immersion in Noise about the reuse of content from the article Noise music in a published form. If you could assist with this it would save some time and energy. Semitransgenic talk. 14:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you are in error. As I explained, I and others have applied his research notes and eventual published writings to the Wikipedia Noise Music page. In that sense he did supply most of the historical data that makes up the Noise Music page and so he made that claim loosely in an interview. Indirectly he did develop it to a large extent. Regardless, I don't see how all the historical material donated to Wikipedia serves anyone as a "self-promotion tool". If anything, others have been promoted through the research material he gave me. Just see all that I have added to the page. That is a fact for which Wikipedia should be grateful I would think. For example ALL the material listed above on Fluxus comes from Dr. Nechvatal's own early activity as an archivist for LaMonte Young - as I learned it from him.
In that your evidence states "see earlier versions" of the page - this reflects an overlap with this process and contrasts with what was included in his book Immersion in Noise (which is only slightly concerned with Noise Music). There is no reference to "development of twelve-tone technique and serialism" or Arnold Schoenberg or Thomas J. Harrison in the current Noise Music page. for example. It is an abusive stretch, I would think, to accuse the author of a licensing violation based on a nonexistent page.
His research for his book precedes the Wikipedia Noise Music page. Dr. Nechvatal's book is a free e-book on which he makes no profit.
For you to make an issue of my major contributions to Wikipedia based on research I obtained from him is itself rather absurd. Please stop this nonsense or I will again need to call for arbitration. Your recored of abuse towards me will not serve you well. I have kept a record of it (even as you have deleted it from your talk page). Valueyou (talk) 15:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
I think you are clearly not understanding how Wikipedia works, over a period of roughly a decade, multiple editors contributed to the development of the article in question. Some of that content exists appears, virtually unchanged, in the Noise music section of the book. That book exists in a physical format and can be purchased on Amazon, it is also available as a PDF for free. In both formats there is no attribution provided, no mention of Wikipedia's CC BY-SA 3.0 license, which is required.
Please note the following comment here: "I think Switzerland indubitably deserves to be mentionned in your own ‘Noise (music)’ article – an article being currently mercilessly ravaged and slaughtered by various Wikipedia robots. Did you notice bot ‘Semitransgenic’is accusing you of vandalism and a ‘Dresden approach‘ to footnotes? Lovely. Don’t give up, Joseph!." Note that a username "Twinkle," a commenter on the thread, links to
Notice wikipedia user Twinkletellus was declared a sock of Tellusarchivist.
There's also the matter of the multiple user accounts that were most likely connected.
We know Joseph was involved with Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and has worked extensively as an archivist so it's rather difficult to tease out what's happening here.
All of this, in conjunction with the statement here: "Then I started to write the Wikipedia page on the history of noise music," leads one to question things. Semitransgenic talk. 15:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
That comment dates from 4 years ago, when I was just starting. In looking at it, I assume it was by one of my predecessors, perhaps James Thompson ie TwinkleJames. At any rate, I do not see why an author should not be able to publish her or his material just because they donated some of it to Wikipedia. That is the case here. Indeed, though I see you may have been offended by this,here it would indicate as such even back in 2008. And I can verify again here that Nechvatal did most of the research work on it. You have been less than helpful in this regard, as our past dust ups have illustrated.
You may be interested to know that on page 233 of the book Immersion in Noise he mentions how he is "helping" Wikipedia: "See the list of noise musicians I have been helping to maintain at". Given the information he was feeding me back then - and my long record of contributions also on that page - I concur that he has been very helpful. Yes, of course multiple editors contributed and continue to contribute, but as the blogger seems to indicate, there was a great deal of work coming to the page from Dr. Nechvatal via my predecessor and then myself. Valueyou (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You are still misunderstanding how wikipedia works in using words such as "donation." There is nothing that was contributed to the article that did not already exist in previously published works. Wikipedia is a collaborative venture, if one chooses to contribute, the question of authorship changes, this is reflected in the license. In the case of a long standing item that has seen multiple variations, by many contributors, this should be clearly apparent. I am not trying to discount your efforts, but it is disingenuous to ignore the fact that Wikipedia and it's editors helped create, edit, and maintain the content. Is it better now that it was? Yes. Is this down to a single individual? No. Semitransgenic talk. 17:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed my knowledge of the inner workings here is still less than 100%. I operate out of common sense. Perhaps "donation" was the wrong word. Anyway, thank you for the statistical numbers at many contributors showing that I did the majority of the work on the NM page based on what Dr. Nechvatal gave me (based through his research for his book). Yes I agree with you that research does not belong solely to anyone, but someone has to collect it first (as he did). Valueyou (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
You are not appreciating what the contribution figures are actually telling us.
Contrary to what you believe, the majority of the work has been done by the collective effort of other editors.
For example: the top 10 editors alone have made 726 edits: minus your 270: that equals 456 made by other contributors. Trying to present this as a solo effort when it demonstrably isn't is not a solution here.
Are there instances, across Wikipedia, where a single editor's contributions outweigh the combined input of others? Yes, but this is not one of them.
Additionally, in terms of this research you claim to have done, if you recall you once stated: "I am offering primary source information...and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK."
Need we ask who has a PhD and has worked for the Dia Art Foundation?
James appears to be Nechvatal's middle name, not that of a former employee, hence the user name Twinklejames. Semitransgenic talk. 09:42, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia article text is based on the book where is the credit to the book? If the book is based on the Wikipedia article text where is the credit to the article? If the book is violating Wikipedia's licenses, I would assume the problem is more with or should be pursued with the publisher rather than the author. Hyacinth (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The Dia Art Foundation is a non-profit organization that initiates, supports, presents, and preserves many art projects over many years. There have been many PhDs and PhD students in its employ over its long history. We tend to get to know past and present archivists and we tend to pass from project to project. That is how I came to know Dr. Nechvatal and how I came to him in 2008 to prepare his archive for donation to the The Fales Library (Downtown Special Collection) at New York University (NYU) where it is now housed. So again I strees that I am an objective archivist and now an X employee of Nechvatal. Again I would appreciate it if you would stop making accusations against me and assume good faith.
On the book issue Hyacinth, I feel responsible here for the confusion, as I added quite a bit of research material based on the formation of the book in close to real time during its development. But there are references to the book on the Noise Music page (the book appeared in mid 2011). My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation does not own copyright on Wikipedia article texts and illustrations. And that one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia is that its text may be freely redistributed, reused and built upon by anyone, under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and, except where otherwise noted, the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). Permission to reproduce and modify text on Wikipedia has already been granted to anyone anywhere by the authors of individual articles as long as such reproduction and modification complies with licensing terms. As Dr. Nechvatal greatly assisted me by providing his research into the subject for his non-profit book, he was not hesitant to use some of the material (publications that include some content from a wiki project are not considered as republished) that appears in some modified form in his Creative Commons license free e-book and not-for-profit print on demand paper book for which he receives $0.00.
On page 5 of the Immersion Into Noise book it states that: “Under this license, authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy this book so long as the authors and source are cited and resulting derivative works are licensed under the same or similar license. No permission is required from the authors or the publisher. Statutory fair use and other rights are in no way affected by the above.”
So I ask that this issue be closed. Valueyou (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Irrespective of your claims to the contrary, the stated inclusion of text originally developed on wikipedia (by multiple editors), in the published work under discussion, fails to adhere to all of the reusers' rights and obligations associated with the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License used by Wikipedia. You have not provided sufficient attribution in your published work. You need to deal with that instead of trying to skirt the issue. Semitransgenic talk. 17:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Irrespective of your insistent claims, the policy is that If anyone wants to use Wikipedia materials in their own books/articles/websites or other publications, they can do so, unless it is used under the non-free content provisions— in compliance with the licensing terms. The attribution issue under discussion does not apply, as no one re-distributed text ONTO Wikipedia. Equally, it does not apply to modifications or additions to a wiki page. As Hyacinth has already instructed you, all the information on Wikipedia is about dealing with Wikipedia violating the copyright of others, not others violating the copyright of Wikipedia.
The wiki licensing notice states that each copy or modified version that is distribute must include a licensing notice stating that the work is released under CC-BY-SA. The fact that the book under discussion exists as as a free digital edition, freely available, and uses a CC BY-SA 3.0 license makes your assertions irrelevant. Perhaps you are now aware of policy. There is no issue here. Valueyou (talk) 23:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Hyacinth was incorrect, there is plenty of information on this issue. In short: "There are many reusers of Wikipedia's content, and more are welcome. If you want to use Wikipedia's text materials in your own books/articles/web sites or other publications, you can do so, but you must comply with one of the licenses that Wikipedia's text is licensed under."
The Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License requires that you include attribution, even if your published work is also made available under CC BY-SA 3.0. and this includes modifications i.e. "to Remix — to adapt the work."
It very clearly advises that: "To re-distribute a text page in any form, provide credit to the authors either by including a) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to the page or pages you are re-using, b) a hyperlink (where possible) or URL to an alternative, stable online copy which is freely accessible, which conforms with the license, and which provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit given on this website, or c) a list of all authors. (Any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions.) This applies to text developed by the Wikipedia community."
This actually applies to reuse of content both on and off Wikipedia, and in any form. Semitransgenic talk. 23:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
I have again carefully reviewed the sections you point me to. As I am the most significant single contributor to the Noise Music page (via research information provided to me by Dr. Nechvatal at the time); concerning the text snippet in question, I hereby grant him permission to use the research that he collected for his book. (Nechvatal did not re-distribute a text page). I do so aware that articles hosted on Wikipedia are released by and can be edited by anybody who has a user id on Wikipedia and that contributors are not bound by license and can use their property in the way they like. This permission I grant provides credit to the authors in a manner equivalent to the credit deserved (see: by many contributors) given that any list of authors may be filtered to exclude very small or irrelevant contributions. By law the contributions are still owned by the people who donated them.
BTW, In reading the material you pointed me to, I see that Dr. Nechvatal’s collected research is not bound by any license and that he can use property contributed (not “donated” as you stress – however, I do not see a difference) in the way he likes.
If you want to put a banner or other notation on the Noise Music page indicating that a great deal of its content was originally developed for publication in his CC-BY-SA book, that is up to you.
Isn’t this getting silly? Honestly I do not have the time to bicker anymore about this, so I prefer to ignore all dramas. I much prefer to take the opinion of the administrator Hyacinth who has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian and was awarded a day to him or herself to the opinion of a WikiOgre. Perhaps a page stalker is needed here.
Based on my history of varied editing contributions I maintain that I have a positive reputation that goes with quality work. The goal of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedic information source adhering to a neutral point of view. Given your past false accusations and abuse towards me (details available on request) - and that you will not assume good faith - I do not believe that you have a Neutral point of view. So I will from now on ignore you. Valueyou (talk) 10:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
you are still not getting it, and fail to understand how CC BY-SA 3.0 functions, but that's OK, you are not the publisher of the book, you don't need to, it's something they will have to resolve.
Your accusations regarding my intentions are also inaccurate. From the very outset you displayed contempt towards Wikipedia's guidelines on sourcing and citation (attribution). You asserted that a "PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer [content] without a book saying it is OK" and you continue to believe that you are doing Wikipedia a favour by "donating" what you claim is "research." Yes Twinklejames, it certainly is silly. Semitransgenic talk. 11:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Armstrong, Lance[edit]

Great job re-writing the lead. It's much better than it was previously. -- Scorpion0422 02:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

EDM, electronica, and techno[edit]

Did you see the recent NPR post on EDM? It talks about the term EDM and its connection to electronica. It distinguishes between EDM and the "non-EDM side of dance music" which includes "niche styles like techno and deep house, which have a longer history and are less likely [than EDM] to include pop payoffs." Not sure how you want to work that into the techno, electronica, and electronic dance music articles, but there's work to be done. :) —mjb (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion[edit]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Monsanto and Wikileaks". Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


Could you please format your references as single lines? (e.g. as opposed to this). It makes it hard for people looking at your diffs to see whether changes have been made in subsequent paragraphs, especially when the diff spans multiple edits. It's also inconsistent with the formatting that's already there, which makes it less convenient to edit. Thanks! Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

the extension that grabs cites from web pages formats them this way. Semitransgenic talk. 13:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which extension you're referring to (see Help:Citation tools) - regardless, it takes about 10 seconds to change that. Actually, on an article that already has templated references, I usually just copy and paste another reference from the screen I'm working on and then fill it in, which is much quicker. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
it's a chrome extension, it's the quickest solution to adding online citations, single line may be preferable to some, but the format I'm using is not unusual, i've seen it across a range of articles, i will however remove blank spaces in future. Semitransgenic talk. 13:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Puppetry and WP:AGF[edit]

Please either take it to WP:SPI or strike your accusations here. a13ean (talk) 19:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Preston Toroidal Scale[edit]

Last October you PRODded this, and I deleted it. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you want to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 11:50, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Hard dance[edit]

Would welcome your input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hard dance, particularly re: which article to redirect to if this is deleted. - filelakeshoe 22:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rave, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spiritual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AMM (group), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]


Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Please do not edit war. There's been 4 separate editors now that have reverted your edit. BlackHades (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On fair use of material[edit]

Just a minor point which has no connection to anything else. Including excessively large pastes from sources in discussions is not covered by fair use, i.e half a page of a 7 page source piece. Quotes should always be brief Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2, Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text. Otherwise just link us to the page, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense, source material is already freely distributed on the internet by the publisher. Link provided covers attribution claims. Also not used in an article. Semitransgenic talk. 21:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Material being on the internet does not imply it has no license, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bang on a Can cleanup[edit]

Hi there - I have updated and added many citations to the article Bang on a Can which you marked for cleanup and needs more references in 2008. I'm going to remove the cleanup and needs references tags on the article. If you think it still needs further work, please make some specific recommendations on how to improve what I've done on my talk page. Thanks! Squarecandy (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your copy/paste at Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh[edit]

Copy/paste is really not the right way to move an article from one place to another. There are other ways to do that. And, of course, you overturned a declared consensus established through the official processl —BarrelProof (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I've undone the cut and paste move. You need to take this up with the closing admin. --regentspark (comment) 18:43, 3 November 2013 (UTC)


I removed {{One source}}, because that tag is for articles with one source – this article has two. (See Template:One_source#Editorial_usage) If one of those two sources is problematic, then flag it as such (e.g. {{Better source}} or {{Irrelevant citation}}). FYI I had already PRODded the article back in November 2012, so it couldn't be PRODded again anyway.

Nomination of List of live artists and groups for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of live artists and groups is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of live artists and groups until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sionk (talk) 00:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cybotron+clear.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Cybotron+clear.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Techno, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clear (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 01:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


I see you tirelessly worked (May 08-13) on the post-disco article a little, chopping a couple of essential sources here and there of course with the best intention. If not intellectually dishonest, it is confusing at best. I do not accuse you of anything however it seems to me like you attempted to diminish any aspect of the article remotely pointing at a music style and instead tell us a story about a meaningless word (what's next, "post-disco" is disco music played in a post office building?) and perhaps the entire internet agrees with you but Allmusic and Simon Reynolds do not and I still think these guys are slightly more relevant than your opinion "post-disco is an era." The bold assertion you made in electronic dance music article that every post- 1970s music including new beat, synthpop, synthwhatever is post-disco without a difference is inconsistent with the sources from the post-disco article and it was a violation of everything we here try to accomplish so I had to re-make it. Sincerely. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream hardcore / gabber[edit]

Hi, not sure if you saw this comment here about the gabber/hardcore articles, what's your opinion on the article (mainly the title) mainstream hardcore? I suppose that article is trying to describe this sound? If so could it be merged into gabber? – filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I started a merge discussion herefilelakeshoe (t / c) 07:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, you may be blocked from editing. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

dude seriously, if you have a genuine claim of disruptive editing take it up at the appropriate board instead off writing crap on my talk page, very sad display, please get a life. Semitransgenic talk. 20:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Vektroid PROD[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Vektroid, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! ~ Boomur [] 23:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)