User talk:Clusternote

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Clusternote, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly message. --Clusternote (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Copyvio)

Hi, I like the image you added to E-mu Systems but it's a copyright violation as is, because you show a copyrighted movie poster almost in its entirety in the photo. Do you think you could crop the original you uploaded to eliminate the poster? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. Which photograph do you said about ? --Clusternote (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A little time ago, I blurred bottom poster using 20x20 mosaic. It may be not copyright violation at now : ) --Clusternote (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Per you edit here you are maintaining that links to commercial sites that offer materials for sale (not for free) are appropriate links per WP:EL, and furthermore that sites that have not been updated in 5+ years are useful historical sources. I suggest you take notice of the following items in EL that are not appropriate external links: "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services and Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject, and lastly, Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.

I would suggest that as long as you are unwilling to edit according to policy, you should not accuse others of vandalism. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MSJapan. Now I'm verifying article and links. Don't hurry up, please. --Clusternote (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As the result, two links are valid, one links is not at all related to Technics brand (may be some confusion of contributor), and rest 2 links seems gray. Therefore I kept 2 links. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the image you added to Yamaha DX1

Hi, just letting you know that I have removed the image you added to the Yamaha DX1 article. While it's not so bad of a image edit, I think it might be misleading because it makes the DX1 appear to be flat. Generally speaking, you should avoid making heavy edits to images that are to be uploaded to wikipedia. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see Yamaha DX1 ? Here is a sample image. DX1 has large flat panel in design, thus I think my edit image is enough accurate. If you don't think so, please tell me where is different, then I'll correct the image.
BTW: Why do you think DX1 is not flat ? --Clusternote (talk)

My main concern about your edit is that it makes the control panel look like it's horizontal (specially if you look at the wood on the sides of the keyboard and ignore the keys), while the control panel in the real thing is slightly diagonal. Another issue is that the article itself is very short, so adding more images makes it look pretty bad (this has been discussed in the talk page before). It would be ok to replace the pic in the infobox with a real top view picture though. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Drumitar

Hey, what happened with the Drumitar page (after I merged it, that is)? I'm kinda confused. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After your merging, I couldn't find Image:Drumtar.jpg in the Drumitar article (already redirected to Zendrum). And I misunderstood the old article (Drumitar) should be recovered. But, it was completely my mistake, so already I canceled my changes on Drumitar and added image on Zendrum article. Sorry for my confusing ! --Clusternote (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Guitar synthesizer, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Audible (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) 10:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll improve the link on later.

Note: I've link it for arousing attentions of readers, because most musical instrument tend to avoid the use of such expressions like a "audible feedback" (it possibly implies non-musical sound). However, if a link to disambiguation page was inappropriate, I want to correct link. --Clusternote (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Processed --Clusternote (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Synthesizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electromagnetic (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) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Processed --Clusternote (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Additive synthesis, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On this issue, at first, I also think it may be a gentle discussion by a slightly confusing user (he/she seems to be still confusing the meaning of "realtime": On the description of historical opitical instruments (without any computation), he/she added link to real-time computing [1] [2]).

However, at last, I recognize it may be a kind of vandalism or sabotage. Even after showing several source on discussion page by me,[3] this user ignore the source, repeatedly reverted the article without his/her sources, and still request source to me.[4] Is it a obvious sabotage actions against normal article editing ?

If more appropriate expression exist, please teach it me. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Additive synthesis shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I already reported it on [5], however, I didn't get result. --Clusternote (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've fully protected the article for three days: in the future, please don't edit war or break the three-revert rule. Discuss it on the talk page. If after the three days, you or 71.169.179.65 return to edit warring, admins may take further action like blocks. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your protection of article. I don't want to own any articles, and also I don't want to edit-war on revert-war. --Clusternote (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Bold; Revert; Discuss means that you make the edit you think should be, and if somebody reverts it, you discuss it on the talk-page. It does not mean "Bold; Revert; discuss-and-start-an-editwar". Your desire to start edit-wars are not something that gives a positive impression, just so you know. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Your quick reversion is not inappropriate manner, thus reverted. best --Clusternote (talk) 23:15, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

More bullshit. I did not revert it "quickly" and the time it takes to revert it is completely irrelevant. Remove the tag and engage in constructive discussion, or I'll escalate this to AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Already I'm consulting to administrator. please wait for a while ... --Clusternote (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. If you go to Talk:Clavia and read what I wrote there, you'll see why your claims have absolutely no foundation in reality whatsoever. There is no need to consult an administrator. The article can't be an advert for Nord Drum when the only mention of it is a link in the product list. The statement is patently absurd. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And in fact, I saw that you asked on the help desk, and that you got an answer. Which is the same as I told you to do: Engage in constructive discussion on the talk page. Now go do so. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

OK so now you claim I "try to confuse" the discussion. That is of course not true. However, I guess this must mean that you find what I write confusing. That, at least, explains why you ignore it. Do you not think a better idea than ignoring it would have been to ask me to clarify? I'm sure I can make things clearer and simpler in my argumentation to find the points of confusion. --OpenFuture (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Gibson Les Paul, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Scott (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) 13:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly notification. I fixed these ambiguous links. --Clusternote (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	In honor of recently making your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia, and for your many contributions to music-related articles, please accept this barnstar. Thanks, Clusternote, for all your hard work to make the encyclopedia better! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kemenche - please compare WP:DABCONCEPT with WP:SIA.

Please compare WP:DABCONCEPT with WP:SIA. If these are in fact all "types of stringed bowed musical instruments", then they are all things of the same type, and should at least be included in a list article rather than a disambiguation page. Furthermore, WP:MOSDAB requires that entries on disambiguation pages have only one link per line, meaning that all of the link you have added will be removed, if this remains a disambiguation page. It seems pretty clear to me, however, that the things listed on this page are all types of stringed bowed musical instruments, and therefore are not ambiguous in the sense for which disambiguation is permitted. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Hornbostel-Sachs classification system for musical instruments. Each instruments has a different classified number such as 321.322, 321.321, 321.31, etc, and should be clearly distinguished. If all bowed string instruments with similar names and same origin should be written on one article as you said, then also Violin, Viol (Viola da gamba), Ville, Fiddle, Rebec, etc should be written on one article. However that idea is clearly nonsense. Note that additional links on each tail of line (i.e. class name and class number on the Hornbostel-Sachs system) explains what you seems not understand. --Clusternote (talk) 21:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not beholden to the Hornbostel–Sachs system or any other particular classification system for musical instruments. This particular class of instruments appears to be related both by the fact that all of the are musical instruments, and in some geographic sense with respect to their origin; the term is not ambiguous in the way that the element "mercury" is ambiguous to the planet "mercury", which is really what disambiguation is all about. It also seems that there is a single page for all bowed string instruments, which is bowed string instruments. Perhaps this title can redirect there, if that page can be expanded to cover the field more thoroughly. Compare flute - there are all different arrangements of flutes, but we are able to capture the range of variation in one page. In any case, until this discussion is concluded I have conformed the page to the manual of style for disambiguation pages, which limits such pages to very strict parameters. Cheers! bd2412 T 22:39, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

 Comment: On this issue, your phrase "Wikipedia is not beholden to the ..." seems to be not convincing, because these systems provide one of the most reliable bases for musical instruments classification, although even these system are not complete. --Clusternote (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Buchla 200e

You undid a massive deletion on the Buchla 200e page, but I think the deletion was justified. I brought it up elsewhere and one person seems to agree. I'd like to know what you were thinking. --Ysangkok (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greco guitars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matsumoto (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) 19:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matsumoku, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albert White (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) 17:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kurzweil K250 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurzweil K250, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CCD (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) 23:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Akai, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DAW (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) 10:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hammond Organ

Hi. Can you discuss images on the talk page first before just doing a blind revert. There are far too many images in Commons that could be used in the article, so we just need to trim them down to a couple of essentials. They can always go in the gallery on Commons instead. I've run this by Binksternet but a full talk page discussion may be worthwhile. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ritchie333. Your editing is excellent, however several important aspects already mentioned on other language version of articles seem to be missed (for example, mechanism affecting sound, including foldback, multi-contact keyboard, etc). I'll added these aspects in the future. regards, --Clusternote (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC) [mod]Clusternote (talk) 11:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, there's a reason for that. The article is on 5,500 words and 63K of text, which means it's starting to approach the maximum size of articles. We've already split Leslie speaker, Clonewheel organ, Chord organ and Novachord, so we can't include everything and need to keep a balance. I've basically given due weight to everything, principally based on the two dedicated book sources I have, and the B-A gets a few paragraphs on one page (by comparison, the "New B3" gets four pages in Faragher). I don't mind dropping in one sentence for them, but can't really justify much more than that, I'm afraid. I think the problem I have is that, aside from the B-A, they aren't Hammond organs as the layman would understand them (even transistor organs had drawbars), so a "See also" is probably the best place for them. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I've just had an idea that can resolve all this - why don't we just create List of Hammond organs as content split? We can put everything in there, B-3, C-3, A-100, G-100 "grand", H-100, S-6, B-A, J-100, Aurora, XK3c etc etc.... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

To keep compactness of main article, the split of detailed product list may be good idea, although considerable part of current description might be kept on main article to explain historical development of Hammond organ. --Clusternote (talk) 12:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, well the list article is now live and linked into the main article. There isn't much there, so if you fancy helping out, it would be great! Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Keytar may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Center, 2010-03-01 (clip).jpg|thumb|220px|[[Matthew Bellamy]], lead singer of British band [[Muse (band|Muse]], while playing a custom made keytar during their [[The Resistance Tour]] ]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gibson ES Series. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Drmies. If you think flyguitars was not reliable, only the deletion of flyguitar is appropriate. And your deletion of ""Model: EB-2, EB-2N, EB-2D - Available: spring 1958 to 1972", Vintage Guitars Info" seems lack rational reason. I'm grad if you could add your reliable source. --Clusternote (talk) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

• I beg to differ, but let me get back to you after class. In the meantime, you can look at Gibson EB-2, where I just added a reference from Vintage Guitar. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
• OK, this kind of link is just not acceptable--it's not a reliable source. There's way too many such links in guitar articles already, and an attendant problem is that they invite the seemingly endless addition of trivia, like minute model and cosmetic changes. Flyguitars should not be used for the same reason, and in addition there's way too much commercial stuff going on on that website. This is not to say that the information on such sites is necessarily incorrect, but they simply cannot be used as sources. If you disagree, take it to WP:RSN and see if you can get a consensus to accept them. Now, this flyguitar staff is disconcerting for another reason, since it totally blurs the line between reference and marketing: they run a huge forum, and individual "articles" (like this one) come with US and UK Ebay listings for the instrument and, separately, for parts, and with ads for strings supposedly specifically for this instrument that link directly to http://www.musiciansfriend.com--a fine store, but not one we should advertise.

  So, yeah, I'm going to remove those links wherever I find them. And lest you think all I do is remove stuff, well, I've written articles on musical instruments, amplifiers, and effects, and frequently add info from Vintage Guitar and Guitar Player, which I subscribe to. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly response ! --Clusternote (talk) 22:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gibson Les Paul Doublecut may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 1958) ...''”, “''Les Paul Special (1959) ...''”, “''SG Special (1959-1961) ...''”, “''SG Special (1961-...''”</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Antoria may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• you illustrated brochures. Manufactures: James T. Coppock Ltd., 61-67, Old Street, London ECI (Tel.:CLErkenwell 2255, Cablegrams: Jatacop, London.''</small>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Antoria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gramophone (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) 08:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guyatone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Selmer (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) 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mosrite may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi, BracketBot. These sentences are quotations from a reference page, thus these orphaned parenthesis should be kept as is. Anyway, thanks for your point out. best, --Clusternote (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gulbransen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Seeburg and Drum sequencer. 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) 08:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your point out. I've disambiguated as following:

• drum sequencer → drum sequencer (controller)
• Seeburg → Seeburg Corporation

--Clusternote (talk) 11:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frequency modulation synthesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulation index. 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) 09:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I've disambiguated as following:

• modulation index → frequency modulation#Modulation index

--Clusternote (talk) 11:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

Hello, I see you are following up on my edits to the information about the NED Synclavier processor. Thanks. I've done some research for you:

1) regarding the two-card design, the only online document I found that describes the card layout is at http://www.yakingcat.com/yaking/html/wsnCARD.html You can see how the processor is listed as being a "Register module" combined with a "Sequencer". Each was on a separate card. This was true for all models of the processor (A, B, C, etc.). In some cases a third card was added that was the multiply-divide unit.

2) regarding the relationship to the Data General Nova, I've thought about it further and looked up the instruction sets once again. I've realized that when we used to describe the ABLE as being similar to a DG Nova that was in our fund-raising documents (as a term known to investors), rather than representing the details of the technical design or its history. So perhaps you should just take this out.

3) regarding the three paragraphs of material on transfer-triggered architecture that you added in recent update, that is probably more technical information than a reader wants to know when coming to a page about Synclavier the music system. I would suggest that you prune that back, since the paragraphs are at the online link you gave.

2601:9:400:1F4:5DE:36E5:B4B1:CC7C (talk) 05:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion, and sorry for my late response. In my eyes, the architecture of ABLE computer seems important as well as these on the other successful campus made computers. Currently I have not enough sources to debate it. Thus, for later reference by others, I will quote your suggestion on Talk:Synclavier page. If you had additional suggestions, please add on Talk:Synclavier#ABLE computer. best, --Clusternote (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multi-neck guitar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hamer. 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) 08:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Disambiguated: Hamer → Hamer Guitars. --Clusternote (talk) 09:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synthesizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fairlight (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) 09:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't revert English corrections for no reason!

 Comment: This title is incorrect. I didn't revert these, and I've explained the reason why inaccurate modification should be fixed (on summary fields, and below). --Clusternote (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

AFAICT, Clusternote is quibbling about semantics, i.e. not pressing the undo button, but simply manually undoing my edits, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Synthesizer&action=historysubmit&diff=645430922&oldid=645400873 The linked edit reverted a lot of changes I had done to remove the pidgin English from the article. At the time I assumed that reverting so much text was simply a mistake, as the edit summary suggested the desired to fix a section relating to "expression". At any rate, I personally consider wholesale changes that reverted sorry restore the text back to the original text (or similar texts) to be a revert, undo button or not. Not that this really serves the discussion at hand, but I feel that the above comment and subsequent edits to my comments on this talk page are purely intended to obscure the issue at hand and present Clusternote in a better light to subsequent visitors to this page. 84.114.214.144 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

---

I note that you reverted all my changes to the synthesizer article despite your edit summary saying "corrected the inaccurate modifications on detailed expression. Wikipedia article is not the place for literary creation without reliable sources". If you wanted to edit the section on expression, you should have just edited that part, not reverted the article back to pidgin English. Also, the parts that you did modify relating to expression were not of a professional standard of English either. I'm, assuming this was a mistake, but given that I spent several hours cleaning up the terrible English in the article, you can understand that I was not best pleased that you nuked everything and reverted it back to the terrible status it was in. I've reverted all your changes to save me the hassle of doing everything again. 84.114.214.144 (talk) 10:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I've not reverted. Instead, I've corrected your inaccurate modifications which were contrary to the sources, as already mentioned on the summary fields of history page [6][7]. You should not write your imagination which is contrary to the fact. --Clusternote (talk) 11:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Corrected false title. The phrase "no reason" is obvious falsehood, because these were mentioned on summary fields, as already explained on above. --Clusternote (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

All I have done is fixed the terrible English - the content was already there, I have added none. You even went and corrected some of the mistakes you reverted afterwards... 84.114.214.144 (talk)

(indent comment)

Also your subsequent "corrections" are not proper English, you're only making the article worse, and it's in a terrible state already. For example, "In 1906, the electronics age have been started by an American engineer, Lee De Forest." is not correct English. You have used an incorrect tense "has been" for an event that was over longer ago. Nor is "diverted" the right word, "used" is absolutely fine. You can "use" things for more than their intended purpose.

Your modification is inaccurate contrary to the sources. You said the fact written on source as incorrect English, but these may be your delusion. For example, the "electronics age" has been still continued, as your personal computer for editing article is also the result of electronics technology. --Clusternote (talk)

While the fact that the electronics age is ongoing, you wrote "started", and that implies a specific point in time. Therefore "has been" is incorrect. That's just how English works.

Indeed. However, the "electronics age" started by Forest was merely an early milestone for the history of synthesizer. The achievements by Forest have been overwritten by the "microelectronics revolution" since 1960s (Forester 1981). --Clusternote (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

That has nothing to do with what I posted before. I'm sure you're right about the facts. My issue is with the incorrect phrasing, not with the facts. If anything I have edited is erroneous, that's because it was wrong in the first place, i.e. the author may have meant to say something else, but phrased it incorrectly. I have not added any facts/content to the article. I have only rephrased what was already there to be grammatically correct English. I have removed sections that are incomprehensible, i.e. where it is impossible to know what fact is being conveyed so as not to introduce any errors. That's the problem with adding content to the article that is not proper English - it can become incomprehensible and therefore it needs to be removed as it can't be fixed. There is no point in having an article that people can't understand and there's no point in editing something if you have to guess at what it is you're trying to say. I repeat, I have only edited phrasing, I have not added any material to the article. Does that make things clearer? 84.114.214.144 (talk) 19:34, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, my explanation was insufficient.

• In English, the word "start" (and possibly also "begin") is an status change event that occurred at one point in the timeline, and this status change event itself can't continue the state, thus the phrase "it have started" is grammatically wrong.
• Original my intention was mentioned about the 2nd and 3rd industrial revolutions which are composed as a series of constant innovations (electricity age, electronics age, microelectronics revolution, and digital revolution or IT revolution in today, etc). It is often referred as "revolutions have begun".
• However, Forest's invention in 1906 is often referred as the "start of electronics age".
• Then, I've rewritten the original expression (revolution ... had begun) accordingly without enough care, and finally grammatically wrong expression (... age have started) was occurred.

That's all! --Clusternote (talk) 00:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, statements like "However, probably several people were not satisfied by the overall results up to that time." are highly unencyclopeadic and have no place on wiki. This is not a forum for speculation and original research.

It is also your delusion. At least, Japanese composer Minao Shibata in 1949 was not satisfied by the technology he seen until 1949, as written on Koichi 2004. --Clusternote (talk)

Then write it that way and include a source. Words like "probably" are not acceptable. Write that Minao Shibata was not satisfied and include a source. If he was unsatisfied, there's no need to postulate using "probably".

Indeed. At least one Japanese was not satisfied the situation at that time (Shibata in 1949), as written on Shibata 2004. --Clusternote (talk) 19:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't you be better served by editing the article in your native language, and getting someone to translate the text properly? That way we can maybe avoid both factual issues and have a professional standard article written in appropriate and grammatically correct English. 84.114.214.144 (talk)

I'm already fed up with your delusions which completely ignore the reliable sources. --Clusternote (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

What has that got to do with anything? What sources? The texts you have written that don't make sense?

Also please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments, especially the part that says: "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request. 84.114.214.144 (talk) 18:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Digital waveguide synthesis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dave Smith (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) 08:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Improper use of the word "vandalism"

[8] was not reverting vandalism by any definition. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Oiyarbepsy. Although the issue about redirection of the term "Wavetable" is discussed on Talk:Wavetable synthesis and Talk:Wavetable, this IP person faithlessly ignored the discussions and changed the article, thus I referred his/her actions [9][10] as "vandalism". Any questions ? --Clusternote (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a question: how did you become so clairvoyant that you can tell that someone thousands of kilometers away is faithlessly ignoring "the discussions" (your monologue, at least in an echo chamber multiple persons are self-affirming each others' POV). You're an echo chamber of yourself, Clusternote). Now, if you revert this again, we'll talk to the admins about it. If you remember File:Sinusoidal_Analysis_%26_Synthesis_(McAulay-Quatieri_1988).svg, I'm here to make sure you stay honest and don't simply rewrite history (or the current state of knowledge) to what it is in the world of your mind. Your POV is not necessarily the wp:NPOV, and if you insist it is, your arrogance would be showing again. 65.183.156.110 (talk) 03:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note the point of Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Charles Matthews (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)