User talk:Synthwave.94

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

.

The Article Rescue Barnstar[edit]

Rescue Barnstar Hires.png The Article Rescue Barnstar
Thankyou for your great work saving the article "Overpowered by Funk" from deletion! benzband (talk) 10:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

And this is from me:

Music barnstar.png The Music Barnstar
I award The Music Barnstar to Synthwave.94 for his exceptional effort on expanding and —probably— saving from deletion "Overpowered by Funk". –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ben has anticipated my intention, as always :D. Once, again thank you. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tool suggestion[edit]

Hi there, have you considered making use of a tool like Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser? It is built for making repetitive editing tasks a bit easier by semi-automating them. For example, you could make a list of articles that contain "New Wave" and tell it to change them to "New wave". You still have to review each change to make sure it's correct, but it might be a lot easier for something like that. Just a thought. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's true. However I don't know how tools like AutoWikiBrowser work... But thank you for your suggestion, that reminds me of something I'd like to talk about with somebody. Do you know if it is possible to create a bot (or an automatic tool) able to make changes like this one ? It would help me a lot. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
AutoWikiBrowser does some of that type of stuff.. general maintenance and cleanup of articles that you tell it to look at. Maybe you can look through Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/User manual and see if it would be easy to use. I know there is also a tool called Reflinks that automatically fixes and fills out references properly. See User:Dispenser/Reflinks. I don't actually know too much about bots except that they are generally programmed in Python. That is not my area of expertise at all. I do know that if you have a task you would like automated, you can ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests to see if an existing bot could be programmed to do the task. Hope this helps! --Spike Wilbury (talk) 02:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I will take a look at these links as soon as possible. Thank you very much for all of this ! Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ray Crisara[edit]

Did you hear that Ray Crisara just died? Sad news for Let's All Chant fans. :( DBaK (talk) 21:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know who was Ray Crisara before you asked me this question. Now I know who is this guy but I've been unable to find something related to his death. Where did you get that from ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Hang your head in shame! <g> He MAKES the record!! (I'm totally unbiased here, of course.) The whole trumpet world is talking about it - he was very highly thought of and has lots of ex-students of great eminence. I'm seeing it on FB and in emails from colleagues, but when I see something citeable, I will either add it in or let you know ... how does that sound? Cheers DBaK (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
PS It might well show up here in time. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because I like "Let's All Chant" doesn't mean I know all artists who made this record. This is only one of the numerous disco records I'm listening to ! ;) But thank you for all this infos, I learned something I didn't know at all. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't take the "shame on you" too seriously. :) I am well aware that my angle on this stuff is a minority interest! It was just a joke, not a criticism of your musical knowledge - apologies for any offence ... it was not intended. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 13:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised by your "He MAKES the record!!". It may be true, but Zager made this record too. ;) Also don't worry, I understood you seems to be a die hard fan of Ray Crisara (and the "trumpet world" ?). Nice to see people like you love sharing knowledge. Once again thank you for all of this. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I will let you know if I turn up anything that could help. Cheers DBaK (talk) 15:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year (song)[edit]

Could you keep an eye with the page? Make sure if contributors doing unsourced genres. 183.171.168.64 (talk) 16:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes of course. And I can clean up the article by the same way. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

"Azok voltak a szép idők, barátom"[edit]

Well, you certainly tidied up there. Care to discuss at the Talk Page? Many thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png Wanted to say a big big thank you for noticing the dmy issue,

Unbeknowingly I'd done the same thing to all of his singles/albums so took some time self reverting,,
Anyway thank you :)
Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 22:56, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

This is the reason why semi-automated tools should be used with extra care. ;) Synthwave.94 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely agree! :), After yesterdays crap I'll most certainly take more care :)
Regards, –Davey2010(talk) 23:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi![edit]

Hi, Synthwave.94! I am Isabella, Barbara's daughter, just wanted to say thank you for your accuracy.

Thanks. ^^ Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Get down!![edit]

[1]. Thought you might appreciate this funk gem. Much shorter than the 9:05 12" remix, alas (where you can really get carried away with that overpowering synth-funk groove) - but I'd pleased to email you a copy if you'd like one. Meanwhile, please feel free to make any contribution you can to Robert Brookins. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow ! Never heard this before but this funky rhythm is so good ! Sounds like a mixture of "Living in America", "I'm in Love" and "Walk the Dinosaur", three great tracks you should listen to (if you don't already know them of course ^_^)
Can you give me your e-mail adress so I can e-mail you and then you'll can send me a copy ? I'm already excited about listening to it while editing Wikipedia at the same time ! X)
As soon as possible, I would try to help you improving the article you're talking about. You know I like improving music-related so there's no reason to ignore your suggestion ;) Regards and happy editing. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, three great tracks, all well-known to me. Always nice to have a bit of "luxury". If you want my email you'll have to enable your contact option under User perefences! Martinevans123 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think I managed to send you an e-mail. Please confirm it as soon as possible. Regards Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Just sent you a mp3. ENJOY!! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I've just seen it. Thanks a lot for sending me this 80s gem. Synthwave.94 (talk) 22:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Circular references on nu metal[edit]

Thanks for catching those listings cited to their own articles. I caught a few that were added today, but I had the feeling that there were more.--¿3family6 contribs 23:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Several IP adresses did exactly the same thing for other lists I improved before. Fortunately I was here to remove all of this. Synthwave.94 (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You might want to discuss your removals[edit]

I don't understand what is it that you think I should read at Wikipedia:Genre Warrior. Also, you pointed out here in this edit summary that I should read Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#Sources to avoid which says Allmusic's genre sidebar should generally be avoided if better sources are available, but as you can see it is not included in the table below. With that in mind, your source isn't a better source in this particular case?.--Harout72 (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You're restoring unsourced genres. Also your personal point of view counts for nothing at all and this is the reason why I thought you should read WP:GENREWARRIOR (one of your answers clearly proves you're reacting like a genre warrior). Also do you want other proofs AllMusic sidebars are unreliable ? No problem, see 1, 2, 3 and 4 different examples which prove I'm right. Other users such as Andrzejbanas would tell you the same thing. You cannot use them because they are computer generated and are therefore completly unreliable. Only reviews/written biographies from AllMusic are considered reliable. The source I provided is definitly more reliable because it was written by two music specialists. The book is not "self published" as Routledge mainly publishes academic books. Routledge published other books such as the Encyclopedia of the Blues or the Encyclopedia of Recorded Sound, two good books which are often used for music-related articles. Moreover if you read the book description, you'll see :

"Made in Italy serves as a comprehensive and rigorous introduction to the history, sociology, and musicology of contemporary Italian popular music. Each essay, written by a leading scholar of Italian music, covers the major figures, styles, and social contexts of pop music in Italy and provides adequate context so readers understand why the figure or genre under discussion is of lasting significance to Italian popular music. The book first presents a general description of the history and background of popular music, followed by essays organized into thematic sections: Themes; Singer-Songwriters; and Stories."

Now would you say this source is unreliable ? Think twice before answering.. Synthwave.94 (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you're not really proving much with this, or this, and even this?
Although, your source may somewhat be reliable, it in no way proves that Den Harrow's and Baltimora's Genre is and/or was only Italo-Disco. The term Italo-Disco (and I think we've had this discussion before elsewhere), is simply a term that covers wide variety of electronic Genres including New-wave as well as Synthpop. So by providing a source for Italo-disco, you're automatically supporting the Genres such as Synthpop and even New-wave. I'll ask an administrator as to whether or not allmusic can or cannot be used as a source for Genres. For the time being, relying only on your source, both articles of Den Harrow and Baltimora are semi-handicapped when it comes to having correct genres. You must realize that both these projects were at their peak during the 80s, meaning it is not easy to locate sources which offer details about them including Genres.--Harout72 (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
All of this is obviously your personal knowledge and is completly irrelevant. The source talks about "Italo disco", not "new wave" or "synthpop" (which are not linked at all with Italo disco anyway). Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:05, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Anyone with a little knowledge about the term Italo-Disco, would know that all three are closely related and no specific source is required to prove that such is the case. You need to do further research regarding the issues/topics you desire to build and improve. Working on wikipedia isn't just about finding comfort in battling with other editors, which I've noticed is the situation you have often found yourself in. You need to absorb knowledge before you can start providing it. You're trying to provide it before you have learned it yourself. It takes a lot more than just reading what sources say.--Harout72 (talk) 02:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
So according to you "no specific source is required to prove that such is the case" ? The answer is a big no, you need sources. You're not a reliable source and your biased knowledge is not even correct. What reliable sources say is definitly more important than what you (or I) think. What you're saying clearly goes against Wikipedia main rules, such as WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You're also violating WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:SYNTH by the same way. The book I used never associates Italo disco with the new wave or synthpop movement. Therefore you cannot choose to add "new wave" or "synthpop" if they are not explicitly mentionned in the source. Once again what you think is irrelevent and you're clearly talking like one of these typical genre warriors I've seen a couple of months ago. These genre warriors change genres to suit their own point of view but NEVER provide anything at all (your recent edits exactly fall in the same category), and therefore their edits are considered disruptive and they can be blocked indefinitly for this reason. Continue this way if you want to be blocked indefinitly like most of them.
Also, you said I need "to absorb knowledge before you can start providing it", right ? However "competence "does not mean we should label people as incompetent. For example, we do not say "You are incompetent because you don't know anything about the subject of this article"" (which is exactly what you said). If you think you're more experienced than me then I think it is not the case at all. I've alreaddy improved numerous articles removing unsourced statements and adding correctly sourced material (as I did for Baltimora and Den Harrow).
All in all, what you just said is incorrect and suggest you don't even improve articles the right way, unlike actually experienced editors. And between both of us it seems to me that you're not the most experienced editor... Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
As I'm understanding now correctly, you have removed allmusic.com only because your offline source doesn't mention synthpop or new-wave? Your source may support Italo-disco, but it doesn't mean Baltimora's music didn't belong to other genres as well. For that reason, you should not have removed other Genres. I see you have learned how to locate provide links for half of wiki policies, but I'm not sure you understand them enough to teach others what purpose they serve. Finally, I'm not sure why you're under the impression that I might get an indefinite block, but I see that you should be cautious of getting another indefinite block which this time may be permanent.--Harout72 (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If a genre is unsourced then I can remove it if I'm able to provide reliable references for one or several specific genres (see WP:BURDEN). And don't try to threaten me with a block, it's not going to work and it will result in you being blocked if you continue your disruptive editing (such as providing poorly sourced material) Your results are clearly Googled-searched and prove you're not even able to find good sources. (see also WP:OWN which specifially refers to your behaviour)Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Just realized you exactly did the same thing last year, claiming genres were correct while you didn't have any sources at all to prove you were right. Another proof your edit pattern is the one of a typical genre warrior and article "owner". Synthwave.94 (talk) 14:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
One song is not necessarily representative of what a band usually plays. The Rolling Stones performed on disco song called "Miss You" but it doesn't make the band a disco band. Synthwave.94 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Native (album)[edit]

Special:Contributions/Cal 505 removed "pop rock" with source two times. Can you keep an eye? 183.171.181.211 (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course, I can. Synthwave.94 (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring, as you did at Baltimora. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  -- GB fan 02:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Synthwave.94 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I was discussing the reliability of the source previously adde by Harout72. I started the discussion a few days ago, in order to avoid being accused of POV pushing. I reverted 3family6 because he didn't stop restoring the book reference while I've already begun the discussion and provided several arguments to show I was right. Harout72 pushed his own POV several times and I wanted to correct his obvious POV-pushing edits once for good, but of course I've been unable to do so because of another POV-pusher. Moreover I respected the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I deserve to be unblocked for this inappropriate block. Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This block is not inappropriate. You began edit warring on the same article over the same material almost immediately upon the expiration of a long previous block for the same behavior. All of this contrary to your promises in previous unblock requests. It's great that you are starting discussion; it's also important to stop reverting while the discussion is ongoing. Note that more clueless unblock requests like this will likely lead to the same outcome as your previous block; please take some time to re-think your approach before adding another one. Kuru (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Synthwave.94 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

OK I promise not edit warring over the article until the discussion at WP:RS/N in not finished. However please understand I'm looking for the best sources I can for all articles I edited so far, including Den Harrow and Baltimora, and several sources previously added by both Harout72 and 3family6 were clearly unreliable (although 3family6 recognized his mistake at WP:RS/N) for the other article) Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is the same situation that led to your 1 month block in November. Your suggestion that "I promise not edit warring over the article until the discussion at WP:RS/N in not finished" isn't reassuring. My advice is that you should agree not to edit music genres. PhilKnight (talk) 04:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I reverted the removal on Baltimora, and explained my reasoning. I did it second time, after commenting at the related RS/N discussion. My revision was reverted both times (though was restored by another editor), so I will not edit the article further at this point, as I do not want to edit war. My previous edit on the article was back in mid November. I agree with Synthwave.94's assessment of the Den Harrow source (apart from the statement that the DJ is "amateur"), so there has been no conflict there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I just realized Rhododendrites restored all the unreliable references I removed in the Den Harrow article ! Seriously what I'm supposed to do to remove them this time ? Synthwave.94 (talk) 02:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The short answer to your question ("Seriously what I'm supposed to do to remove them this time?"): You're supposed to not. You're supposed to talk about it on the talk page -- and not to just talk long enough to "demonstrate that you're right", but long enough for consensus to emerge. You're supposed to collaborate, discuss, and go through proper channels, ultimately accepting that sometimes (a) you might not be as right as you think you are -- at least insofar as Wikipedia policy is concerned, or (b) that because this is a collaborative environment you may have to compromise.
The reason you keep getting blocked is because you engaged in an edit war and refused to take accountability, making everything contingent upon other people stopping, other people being wrong, you being right, and so on. None of that matters. Everybody is individually responsible for [not] edit warring. There is an explicit exception for defamatory material on BLPs, but the only reason that's made explicit is because otherwise there's no exception. If someone else edit wars, rather than respond in kind, take it up at a talk page, noticeboard, etc. so that next time it's the other one who gets blocked.
I want to be totally clear that I'm not posting here to give you a hard time, add insult to injury, to say that you're wrong, to say that any other involved party is right. The reason I'm here, talking in a somewhat blunt manner even though I know blocks are a sensitive matter [for anyone], is specifically because I think that most of the time you're absolutely right about these things! Most of the time you're a valuable, productive editor and it would be a shame if you were blocked indefinitely. ...But this is a collaborative environment. Sometimes you might not be right and sometimes you might be right but because it's kind of a gray area (or even if it's not) a consensus may form against you. It happens to all of us on a very regular basis. Going through proper channels may mean some consideration of "pick your battles."
Last thing: a suggestion. If you do this, I don't know whether you'll be unblocked early or not, but I think it'll give you the best shot (assuming it's for real). First, say "I understand there's no excuse for edit warring no matter how right I am." Then propose a self-imposed WP:1RR on genre editing. That doesn't mean abstaining from editing genres like someone proposed last time around -- it means edit them all you want, but if someone reverts one of your changes, limit yourself to one revert before dealing with it another way.
Apologies for the long post. Nobody likes to be criticized, I know. Just trying to get you back to editing music articles [without the whole edit warring thing]. --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Glad to see you're clever enough to see I'm a "valuable, productive editor", because that's exactly what I am. Yes I know edit warring is considered "harmful", "bad" or whatever administrators want to call it, and that it doesn't help improving an article. And yes I know I've been blocked several times for removing those unreliable references ! However you should be aware I usually don't have any problems at all with my edits (including edit warring). They are constructive, helpful and most of the the time I receive positive feedback (throughout my talk page or throughout "thanks" notifcations). But what happened for Baltimora and Den Harrow is different, because Harout72 decided to start a genre war because I removed "new wave", both unsourced and incorrect. Once again, this editor continue pushing his own point of view, using random sources. I've already got problems with this user before (with the list of Italo disco artists and songs) and this is one of the reason I didn't edit the list since I edited it for the last time, because I didn't want to have problems with this editor any longer. However I didn't expect he would do the same thing at other Italo disco-related articles ! I understand you're trying to help me but please keep in mind this user doesn't help me at all and this is one of the typical editors who waste other editors' time for nothing (at least regarding Italo disco-related articles). The sources you restored are unreliable and 3family6 confirmed it at WP:RS/N. He also added another reference which supports the fact Den Harrow has nothing to do with the new wave movement. I obviously don't want to be blocked indef because of one or two articles, but it's a shame that I got blocked because I wanted to improve articles "owned" by another editor (take a look at the revision history for both articles and you'll see Harout72 often restored "new wave" after it was removed by IP adresses/other editors). It should be forbidden but of course who can prevent this kind of behaviour except administrators ? Sure Wikipedia is not perfect, but editors like Harout72 made it worst and that's what other editors around here need to understand. Synthwave.94 (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Synthwave.94 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I'm not going to edit war over the article again. I promise discussing my changes before making them again. I recognize I should have stopped editing both articles and it's true I went a bit too fast. I only wanted to solve the problem once for good. Can you please trust me and unblock me now ? Thanks. Synthwave.94 (talk) 04:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is no more convincing than your last request. Before this block you were discussing your changes but still reverted. Here, your promise permits you to repeat the same behavior. I'm tempted to revoke your talk page access because of your peristent requests. However, I'll leave that to another administrator for the time being. You might try taking a significant break from Wikipedia before making any more requests. Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

{{unblock|I'm serious. I'm going to discuss all of this. I'm not going to edit war again. And I'm not going to take a break because of two articles only. I recently edited many other articles and it perfectly proves I didn't edit Baltimora and Den Harrow only. I've understood from Rhododendrites what was wrong about my edits for these two specific articles and I'm going to discuss my changes. Now stop trying to bring me down and unblock me once for good. Thank you. Synthwave.94 (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)}}

  • You don't pay attention to warnings or advice. I've therefore revoked your talk page access for the duration of the block. You may use WP:UTRS to appeal.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

WHAT HAPPENED![edit]

SYNTHWAVE94, WHAT HAPPENED TO YOU!!!! YOU HAVE BEEN BLOCKED. I'M GOING TO HAVE A RIOT IN MY HANDS!!! :( :(

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)