User talk:82.3.22.93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Analord

Right. You wanna talk? I'll talk. First of all, let me say that from the fact that you keep stressing the need to discuss my edits, it sounds like you think I might have a point. After all, you clearly think there IS something to talk about, right?

Well, you're right. There is. I want to talk about the reason why you think that pithy, irrelevant post — that just happened to be said by one Richard D. James — is a necessary addition to the analord article. Well, I hear you cry,

  • "It's in the trivia section, it's analord trivia!" — right? wrong. How is it in any way shape or form trivia about analord? As far as I can see, it's just a totally vague remark about old music equipment. What on earth does it have to do with a collection of tunes, a whole series of them, that he has released?
  • "But he made them on old music equipment!" — so you can make a causal connection between two things. Well done. But that doesn't change a thing.
  • "But his username was analord!! that's the name of this article!!!!" — ok. so I suppose that means I could change my name by deed poll to "Mr. cheddar" and then cite this fact as relevant trivia on wikipedia's cheddar cheese article? Cool. I might just do that.
  • "But it's aphex!! aphex wrote it! omg!" — don't be a fanboy.


I don't mean to be patronising, and I'm sure these made up exclamations don't really apply to you. But let's be serious for a moment. Let's analyse the quote in all its rubbish quote glory:

“ In a Planet Mu messageboard post under username "analord", Richard D. James said: "some people bought the analogue equipment when it was unfashionable and very cheap. some of us are over 30 you know! anyone remember when 303`s were £50? and coke was 16p a tin? crisps 5p". Read the full post which talks about analogue equipment here:[1] ”

I'm going to look at this piece by piece.

  • "some people bought the analogue equipment when it was unfashionable and very cheap." — ok, so this bit is just stating the obvious, isn't it. it's like saying "in the olden days, things didn't cost as much as they do now." that's ALL it's saying. what this has to do with a series of records is totally beyond me.
  • "some of us are over 30 you know!" — wow! really!? yet more amazing revelations from this divine prophet of supreme untold knowledge.
  • "anyone remember when 303`s were £50? and coke was 16p a tin? crisps 5p" — well, not quite, cos i'm not quite that old, but I can think back 10 years and prices were indeed closer to those figures. So there we go again, yet more blatant statement of fact that is neither interesting, useful and least of all relevant. The ONLY thing I can possibly think of that relates ANY of this in the slightest to analord is that it was written by the producer, and that it fleetingly namedrops "analogue equipment" and "303s". THAT'S IT.

This article is quite fortunate (or unfortunate, depending on how you look at it) in that it's not a very popular one; read by or edited by a lot of people. This means that its quality control rests in the hands of vastly fewer people; namely the ones who actually read it AND choose to edit it (as well as the odd bot or recent changes monkey, perhaps). But what that also means is that we have to be more vigilant in our efforts to weed out the crap and write good articles. Now of course, this is just my opinion, but it is my opinion that the quote adds nothing whatsoever to the article. You get the feeling someone could read it and at the end they'd just go "oh...right...err, great." That, to me, is a warning sign that we're dealing with waffle. We learn nothing new from it. And even if we did — which we don't — it's nothing relevant to this article.

As for the link, well, that has SLIGHTLY more grounds for inclusion (which is not to say I would be happy for that to be left in, but I would certainly prefer it on its own without the aforementioned bad quote). However, as a regular of the planet mu phorum myself, I feel that that particular thread was not only

a) surpassed by many, many other threads of FAR more relevance to this article but also

b) ultimately a pretty stupid dick-swinging contest between various folk that might only really be notable for the fact that aphex contributed to it.

Given that his contributions (and the overall subject matter) were to do with the realism of analogue emulations, don't you think that thread might be more fitting if linked from, say, a Rebirth article? or the 303 one? What does this really have to do with the analord series itself? Not a whole lot. Yes, you could get into the debate over the merits of using real analogue equipment over vsts and software emulations, and discuss James' decision to do so, but again, I feel that's way beyond the scope of the article. It's not explicitly stated that that was the intention of including the quote either, so as it stands it just sticks out like a sore thumb.

You may have read all this and still disagree, but please consider my (and other people's) point of view, and try to write an article that is well rounded, neutral and concise.

And please don't call me a vandal. I'm not one. Look it up: Wikipedia:Vandalism

And I quote;

“ Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopaedia. ”

The reason it instantly fails the acid test is because my omission was categorically NOT a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopaedia. In fact, it was the complete opposite. While I may have been slightly awkward in not stating my reasons for the deletions up until now, the same could be said for you in your failure to justify why the quote should be kept in.

I hope we can reach an amicable settlement over this matter. And apologies for the length of this post; but as you may have guessed, I was bound to eventually be provoked into responding.

Thanks, 80.177.20.202 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit

I noticed your recent edit to GAK (album). Please note that comments on articles belong in the talk page, not in the article itself, unless you use one of the template messages designed for this purpose. Cheers! --Bakanov (talk • contribs) 09:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)