User talk:OnBeyondZebrax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] NPOV

I disagree with you. Although it can lead to POV, it is important to say how the public recieved a film for example, because this reception is often different to that of the critics. Anyway, "critics" == "prominent experts" in my opinion. What do you think? Maybe there is a way to rephrase this. Yandman 14:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skinhead article

In your comments by your edit to the skinhead article, you wrote that the text I reverted "...is filled with weasel words, original research..." What specifically are you referring to? I have no issue with the edit you made to the one sentence, but I'm not sure if you have other examples. I didn't write most of that text, but it looks pretty accurate to me, and it's nothing that I haven't read, heard or seen before. I have been careful about not just instantly reverting huge sections just because of a few errors. I always read through the changes and only delete or revert content that is innacurate, unverifiable, point of view or irrelevant. Of course I sometimes make mistakes, but I usually catch those later and remedy the situation. Spylab 12:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

I looked back at the article, and saw a few examples of what you mean. I replaced words like "exploded" and "closely tied" with more academic and verifiable terms. I'll take another look to see any others I have missed. The skinhead article is notorious for editors (often anonymous) trying to promote their point of view (usually US-based) and posting unverified myths that they have read on message boards and other unreliable sources. My goal is to make the article as accurate and relevant as possible. Spylab 13:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)Spylab

[edit] B-movie

You're quite right. I've restored the quote, clarifying the context. Best, Dan—DCGeist 13:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aestheticization of violence

Hi, Nazamo. I do agree with you that the article still needs a considerable amount of work. I hope you're agreeable to my copying and posting your comment to the article's Talk page, as it raises a couple of important, specific points. I disagree with one and agree with the other (as I state there), but certainly others interested in the article should consider both of them. Best, Dan —DCGeist 18:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your changes on Jazz fusion

Your changes are generally a mess, and there was no POV in the article as it existed, and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. You also butchered the layout, and now I get to spend hours reverting what you've done. Tvccs 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

In looking at your contribution history, you have an obvious interest in the bass and bass guitar - in looking at your changes and deletions - it would be a POV to say Jaco Pastorius was innovative, because it's an unsourced "POV", even though we and thousands of others would agree with it. Such criteria is a POV in and of itself, and if POV is that large a concern, your efforts might well have been better spent researching and linking/bookmarking the content that was there. The deletions you made on Soft Machine, for example, are completely inappropriate - Third is their largest selling record by far, was in print for many, many years, and is seen by most familiar with the Canterbury Scene as one of, if not the, leading recording of that era - Hugh Hopper's interviews, which are linked on his page and the Soft Machine page, support that. and I see little or no other contributions from you to anything else to do with Canterbury. The various references cited in the article - most of which predated my contributions, support the prior article, as do other Wikipedia and other sources referenced. It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV. Tvccs 00:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of POV, you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise. You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. Tvccs 00:15, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to plunk this down here, I can't find a "add talk here" place (perhaps I missed it). I saw your site, and I appreciated a lot of your points, about learning about a topic before you edit a page. Here are some friendly responses to your message....
Thanks for your comments.
 Your changes are generally a mess--Just trying to do good-faith copyediting to improve flow, and downgrade strong claims to a more defensible position (e.g. I proposed changing Jaco from the "most celebrated bassist" (or similar phrase), which may be hard to prove, because many bassists have been "celebrated" in bass magazines to "innovative")
I think it's a reasonable forward to claim that Jaco Pastorius and Stanley Clarke were likely the two most influential bassists with fusion ties to the 70's. That commentary was here before I arrived, and I believe it's generally accepted within the fusion community from all that I've read over the past 20-30 years. I'm a former record buyer with a major chain and know many of these people personally as well...have 10,000 recordings, have written liner notes, have music blogs, etc etc etc. God forbid we have anything "OR"...In regards to the layout issues, you have to look at the images on a page and adjust those as well if you're going to mess with copy, not just edit copy and leave a page looking like hell with edits - I don't touch pages unless I'm prepared to edit not only the copy, but the layout as well, and I've had to learn various tricks to make that easier. I might prefer a shorter lead as well, but the prior lead, with the Miles Bitches Brew cover, looked like hell from a layout standpoint, and I didn't want to move the Miles cover just because of my own preferences as it belonged there according to others. Another editor took my original section on virtuosity and time signatures and moved it up into the lead, which I thought was a good move (see the page discussion). I thought it was a good thing to add the Tony Williams Lifetime cover art, which helped balance the layout, and it means the lead is longer than usual. It's a matter of balancing layout and content, and I thought it was the best option at the time. Leaving huge gaps in displayed pages looks terrible, and as I've reviewed pages cited by Wikipedia as excellent I've found layout is an important issue, as it should be. I should also add that I'm reluctant to delete or edit the work of others much except for very minor grammatical cleanup and obvious fact errors or omissions, this is supposed to be a collaborative effort. I'm not the god's gospel on this, and I know people, like the guys that run Audiophile Imports, that can run circles around me. I'd rather add and build than chop and diminish.
 and there was no POV in the article as it existed, I argue that statements like "In addition to Davis, the most important figures in early fusion were.." could have some POV. I argue that the POV exists in the phrase "the most important". If it was softened to "other important", sure, that's defensible. But to say a list of 6 or 7 are "the most important," I believe you'd need an expert source saying this.
Again, there are plenty of "expert sources" that have agreed on this for years to the point of common knowledge - there are not a lot of definitive fusion bibles out there, actually none. There are articles referenced at the bottom of the page that do generally support those contentions, however.
 and you made no specific references to where you saw a POV. Sorry, should have been more specific in edit summary
You also butchered the layout,I didn't believe that the radio airplay para was needed in the Lede...but if you call that "butchering", OK.
See above commentary about balancing layout and copy - One of the things I have consistently found since I was a record buyer in the 1970's, and have seen and heard dozens of times since, is people asking why they never hear this music on the radio, in the U.S., whereas Scott Henderson and other people have talked about a much wider acceptance overseas.
 better spent researching and linking/bookmarking...I agree with this point...I have started some articles, and there are some editors who just keep cutting and deleting, and I feel like you...If you feel so strongly that X content is unsourced or whatever, why not improve it, and don't just cut it out. For the record, I don't think I actually ERASED content, I just tried to copyedit and downgrade claims.
I'm glad you sense the same, and I try to stay away from deleting "unsourced" material I know is reasonable when there are no traditional sources, which is most of the time in what I write about. And yes, there was siginificant content that was deleted in the form of edits. deletions you made on Soft Machine...references to bands being leaders of scenes are commonly made in music pages...However, I believe these claims, since they are subjective, need to be backed up by a quote from an expert (music critic/music historian). Your point that Soft Machine are the leaders may be fine...but many Wiki editors claim that XXX singer is the leader of YYY scene, or ZZZ band is the leader of the QQQQ scene, without references. Read the Canterbury scene Wiki page, the Soft Machine page, there are books on Canterbury, many other references, it's generally, not universally (there are a few Caravan and National Health junkies for example), accepted that Soft Machine was the lead band from the Canterbury scene, and that has been the case for 30-plus years, and they have the record sales to support it, having outsold anyone else Canterbury-related with the exception of Pink Floyd by a wide margin. I already referenced the Hugh Hopper interview in my prior comments. In this case we aren't talking about today's bands, per se, this is established and discussed ad nauseum history.
 It's also not appropriate to move the radio section down to the 1990's and 2000's section you renamed, it's not related. Sorry, probably not a good place, but I didn't believe the lede was a good place.
See above.
 And the majority of other edits, no matter how well-intentioned, create havoc with the prior article, and reflect your own POV.Just trying to improve the article.
Again, your improvements need to be balanced against the contributions of dozens of others, especially when you start chopping up copy. I try and respect the time and effort of others, regardless of whether I totally agree with what they've said, or exactly how they said it.
you are the only contributor to that article in the last however many months that feels that fusion was "well-represented in the 1980's - nearly everyone else has concurred otherwise.Maybe it is a problem of definition of fusion, but the facts indicate that there are Grammy Awards for Jazz Fusion throughout the 1980s....Grammy Awards of 1989: Yellowjackets for Politics Grammy Awards of 1988: Pat Metheny Group for Still Life (Talking) Grammy Awards of 1987: Bob James & David Sanborn for Double Vision Grammy Awards of 1986: David Sanborn for Straight To The Heart Grammy Awards of 1985: Pat Metheny Group for First Circle Grammy Awards of 1984: Pat Metheny Group for Travels Grammy Awards of 1983: Pat Metheny for Offramp Grammy Awards of 1980: Weather Report for 8:30...plus other albums from the 1980s, such as Weather Report (self-titled album) summer of 1981, Yellowjackets Yellowjackets 1981. Yellowjackets Mirage A Trois 1983, Yellowjackets Samurai Samba 1985, Yellowjackets Shades 1986, Yellowjackets Four Corners 1987, Yellowjackets Politics 1988. Yellowjackets The Spin 1989, plus Chick Corea Elektric Band...
The above list generally speaks to the exact issue of the submergence of fusion into the smooth jazz genre and the resulting confusion about fusion (ha-ha). I actually added something to the smooth jazz page on this. By this time Weather Report was a Birdland-driven whatever that was a shell of its original improvisational monster, the Metheny albums cited are from his smoothest phase (and from which many commercial themes were taken - I heard one for Publix Supermakets to the point of near insanity), David Sanborn and Bob James are well-known as smoothers, as is Yellowjackets. The music the Grammys awarded has little or none of the experimentation/improvisation fusion was best known for and is far more littered with the safe and catchy hooks, etc. of smooth jazz, which is why the section on confusion, etc. is appropriately included in the article. If you looked at the smooth jazz station playlists of the time such as the pioneering WLOQ-FM in Winter Park, Florida, the albums you cited above would be all over their air, whereas they wouldn't have touched Allan Holdsworth with a ten foot pole.
 You also removed the section on virtuosity, which is also your POV - you have to be a virtuoso to play most of that music, and very few musicians can at the highest levels, or play and improvise in those meters, etc. I would argue that all top professional instrumental musicians with solo careers in genres ranging from bebop, classical, or bluegrass are probably virtuosos on their instruments. If you claim that fusion musicians have an exceptional level of virtuosity, beyond say a top bebop player or classical soloist, then please add in an expert source (musicologist/music critic) to support this.Nazamo 14:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Classical musicians have a high level of technical virtuosity, but rarely improvise at anything near the level of the best fusion players, or play in odd meters with rare exceptions, and the improvisation that does exist, no matter how beautiful, is generally limited by the form with some rare exceptions. Be-Bop players and especially some avant-garde players obviously improvise, but again, you rarely hear the complexity of odd meters and changes combined with that improvisation (I'd point to maybe the Art Ensemble of Chicago as the best exception), as opposed to a band like Planet X, for example, that may make dozens of meter changes in a single song, or something like Don Ellis playing in a 19/8 that almost no one can play period. Bluegrass players rarely mess much with meters as well with some exceptions, and I wish like mad bands like Union Station would use their gifts of improvisation more as the virtuosity and ability is obviously there - but again, I don't hear bluegrass recordings where you hear the aspects of fusion where you have extended track lengths and soloing combined with mutiple meter changes, odd meters and virtuosity. If you know of any, please point them my way - I was, for example, disappointed in the recent Union Station live DVD which featured great playing all over, but almost nothing that varied much from what had been recorded and released in the studio, even when the songs seemed to scream out for improvisation live. I should also add/clarify that much of my thoughts on virtuosity is aimed at the rock genre, where people like Bruce Hornsby have made a point of talking about how rare a real concentration on virtuosity is in the latest generation of musicians. I have made an adjustment to the virtuosity section, and will edit it further in order to clarify/improve it. Again, thanks for your comments, and I hope you find mine useful as well. Tvccs 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs"

Thank you for your most recent comments - please use the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tvccs, or discussion page, am I am using here, for future comments/discussion with users. Tvccs 17:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again...let's leave the comments here from both and I will check back - Although your extensive changes on jazz fusion again are well-intended, I'm sure, they are again filled with deletions that didn't need to be made, and in many cases the copy again makes no sense - Genuine fusion carries on is not a POV - it's a direct statement redressing this issue of smooth jazz and confusion as a result, and the copy edits you made once again butcher that very needed perspective. I haven't had time yet to read all that you did - have you ever heard "Lotus" from Santana? Your rewrite of that section does him an injustice, and the section on Lotus not being released in the U.S. for twenty years was very relevant. I will add more later. Tvccs 22:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

On a limited further review...I see many more problems...much like the first time. I've looked at your user contributions - can you plase point me to something you've largely created rather than edited? I see a lot of editing, and I see others have complained about your hacking up articles as well. Tvccs 22:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I read your comments quickly...thought we'd leave them all here...but...as in the first go-round, you again deleted content i.e. Santana, which you discovered on further review the first time. Please link here, if you would be so kind, articles you've generally created. Thank you. Tvccs 04:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Let me also add, for the record, that I write for a NY Times newspaper, including material about music, and have for many years. I've also written and produced dozens of television interviews and musical performances for more than ten years, and served as an editor and Executive Producer for many more. I work directly with the artists themselves on numerous occasions, including Wikipedia. Tvccs 10:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Men

I don't like the edits you have made to the article on Children of Men. Your edits are unnecessary and somewhat random; they have disrupted the flow of the synopsis, you've made a few errors, and have generally chopped out a great deal of information. And you haven't even given an explanation as to why you've done this. If you aren't happy with the way the article appears, it would be polite to say so on the talk page and inform other users of your opinions, before you just start tearing articles apart. Rusty2005 22:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank and Silver

Hi, Nazamo. So...there aren't articles on either of them. I have a strong allergy to red links, but I'm resisting it here. If you start the articles, as you said, I'll help out as I can. I know nothing of Frank other than his seminal article (and maybe that's all there is to know); I have in my library most of what Silver has written, so I can certainly contribute there. Best, Dan —DCGeist 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Great. I'll see if there's anything on Frank in my library. As for oneiric/oneirism, that's an interesting cite you give for "oneirism." On the other hand, the very same source--i.e., Princeton--give for "oneiric": "of or relating to or suggestive of dreams" (see here). Similarly, MedicineNet.com gives for "oneiric": "Relating to dreams; dream-like." (see here). Not to mention the latest edition of the standard Merrian-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: "of or relating to dreams : dreamy." The translation, by the way, is direct; Borde and Chaumeton's original French is "onirique." They use the word often, as they do the standard French noun for "dream": rêve. In their discussion of noir, they never use the standard French noun for "daydream": rêverie.—DCGeist 03:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think developing an article on dreams/oneirism in the critical context you describe is an excellent idea. My immediate feeling is that it's too complex a notion to deal with in a footnote, but if you find a good article online on the topic, I think it's fine to link to it until Wikipedia has its own article. A very interesting book directly on this topic came out about a year ago: The Power of Movies: How Screen and Mind Interact, by Colin McGinn, a profesor of philosophy. He investigates "how heightened reality characterizes both film narrative and dreams" and explores the variety of ways in which movies are dreamlike (and dreams are movielike). It's something you might want to take a look at it, or, if you initiate an article from other sources, I can bring some of McGinn's observations in.
Yes, that is interesting about Silver. I had vaguely heard that he was involved in film production, but had no sense to what extent until you raised it and I looked him up at IMDb. A somwhat comparable case is that of James Schamus--the very successful producer of Ang Lee's movies (Brokeback, Crouching Tiger), he's also a professor of highbrow film theory and philosophy at Columbia University (I briefly attended a class of his there). Of course, Silver is the leading presence in the noir critical field; I don't believe Schamus has written nearly as much in terms of film theory/history. Best, Dan—DCGeist 22:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Just had a chance to look at the Frank article--terrific job!—DCGeist 05:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oneiric (film theory)

Just had a look. Excellent work.—DCGeist 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art film

Good addition to Art film--the disclaimer works well and helps with some of the contradictions of having mainstream films listed with arthouse, something that's bothered me but I had no idea how it could be resolved short of editorializing mainstream vs. arthouse. Freshacconci 15:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

re: Art film I don't like the what is taking place on the Art Film page. I think in Your attempts to edit you went out and copied some list of a web page about Indi films, becasue many of the films I am finding are out of place, not indi films or unnecessary and somewhat random; I do not know for shre if you did this but I hope you are cheaking your facts, this page now needs a lot of work. I would like to know how you feel about this. . .Grosscha 20:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I like your Idea about putting the movies at the bottom in the decade time line. I think until we get this page better sorted out keeping it simple would be best, but after that I think adding more info would be a great Idea, and some pic's would do some good. Grosscha 21:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right, simple, and inform, this way people do not become confused, and if people do want more information all they need do is click the link. let me know if you have any other ideas for this page , I am ready to help, just point me in the right detection Grosscha 21:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Noir for all

I finally got a chance to look at the Simple English film noir article. The only thing I feel called upon to say is that I think it's absolutely wonderful that you've done this. Best, Dan—DCGeist 06:20, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resident Evil: Apocalypse

Oh, well thank you. :] Funny thing is I actually had to do a bit of research to figure out what you were talking about. I remember now about deleting the triva section, but I still think the article has a lot more work that needs to be done. There's a section of Miscellaneous Information thats essentially a trivia section in disguise. I haven't gotten to narrowing it down and adding the important stuff into the article quite yet. Good job with the plot edits anyways. I think now all it really needs is a little more tweaking here and there, and perhaps edited to flow a bit more. I'm not entirely sure. -Lindsey8417 07:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spielberg

In my view disreputing a popular film magazine for being populist or whatever is quite POV. If a major establishment says something like that then it is notable. Still, thanks for doing some clean-up on the article: it's become so long I've found it impenetrable. Wiki-newbie 17:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In my view, all major published magazines have a valuable voice on Wikipedia. Still, good work you've doing on Munich. Wiki-newbie 18:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyist

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

--Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Art television

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Art television, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Oo7565 19:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My delete suggestion wasn't meant to be harsh, but I don't think the term is sufficiently noteworthy to warrant its own topic. Perhaps as a paragraph section on Kristin Thompson's page, or under a broader television article. --Jajasoon 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quality television

The problem is that this isn't a straightforward, objective concept; it's an evaluative notion (as if we were to have one article on Music and one on Good music). I honestly doubt that it would survive an AfD. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well yes, but scholars and critics also talk about "great art" and "good music", "good food" and "fine wine" — evaluations all. "Quality television" isn't a term of art any more than any of the others; like them there will probably be a great deal of agreement among mature, educated people — but it's still not objective. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 20:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spielberg

Hi, Finally, an editor with the same "allergy" to "fluff" writing in Wikipedia. Like you, I am tired of "fluff" writing, especially in music and arts articles, when we hear that so-and-so band is "the most influential and important rock band in the history of music" and that so-and-so rock singer "is widely considered to have the greatest voice in all of rock history." Whenever I see this style of writing, I purge it!Nazamo 03:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe that there are "others" of "us" out there :). Seriously, I have been only removing material from the project lately since at least 90% if not more, of the material in here is without sources. The project has exploded in content over the last 18 months. Good and bad imho. Most of the material is probably correct or added in good faith, but without references, who should believe it? I surely would not. Anyways, best of luck and let me know if you need assistance with "fluff removal". Cheers! --Tom 13:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bouncer

Responded on my page. Cheers. MadMaxDog 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am impressed at the stuff you have added to the page. Even if it again meant I had to clean up some refs... MadMaxDog 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stones Edits

Thanks for the edit of the intro. I hope you continue to pay attention to the Stones article. Mr Anoymous

[edit] Double bass edits

Thank you for your great edits to double bass. Your additions on bluegrass slapping are most enlightening. Badagnani 20:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle

Hi Nazamo. You are off to such a great start on the article List of released Guantanamo prisoners who allegedly returned to battle that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Music
Awarded to Nazamo for exceptional contributions to music-related articles. Great work! Cricket02 18:51, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Ghostwriter

I don't have sources off-hand because I put that back in while doing high-speed vandalism reversion, but I do know it's a legitimate usage of the term. Why don't you improve the article by adding some sources; here's a few I got really fast. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Please reply on my talk page if you have any other concerns. Thanks! east.718 19:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you beat my message, great job on the additions! east.718 19:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Saxa (musician)

I admit I went a little over the top with my inclusion of Saxa's history... but what do you say we keep in the line about his peers referring to him as "legendary?" I lost count of the number of times I read that while browsing through sites reading interviews and bios... and many were by fellow musicians rather than critics. That was the purpose of my reference to the site by the former Steel Pulse member... even someone from another band refers to him as such! - Steve3849 talk 04:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Re: Rockets Redglare

Thanks for adding to Rockets page, I think you've cleared up many inaccuracies and false and libelous information that Pfistermeister repeteadly insists on posting. Peace, Black-E

[edit] Acid house

I appreciate your copy edits to the acid house article, especially in the introductory sections, but the etymology section and references sections are now rather messy. Are you still working on it?

I think the bulleted list provided better readability because it allowed the reader to skip the variable-length explanations for each item, whereas your prose version rather forces one to trudge through it. The bulleted list also makes it easier to imply that no one item has any more weight than any other.

I'm very wary of using "perhaps" and "may be due to" types of phrases like those you've added. I had tried to avoid that wording in the article because it makes statements be speculative, which is forbidden in Wikipedia articles. Please take this into consideration as you make your edits, even though it may seem superficial. It can make the difference between the article's stability and another editor coming along and deleting everything on the grounds that it has the look of original research. —mjb 18:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to yours on my talk page: It's not that there's too much text in the references (I think it's all quite useful), it's just that the formatting got crazy when you moved things around. There were various markup issues when I looked at it earlier today. I'll wait until you're done before commenting further, though. —mjb 21:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
You've combined some things such that the Genesis P-Orridge info is now wrong. Please make it clear that 1. He claims to have invented acid house (citation still needed for this, I think); 2. In the Better Living Through Circuitry interview he does not make this claim but rather says that when he asked a Chicago record store clerk for the weirdest records on hand, he was pointed to the "acid house" section (the clerk used the term; it was apparently new to P-Orridge). He listened to them to try to figure out what made them psychedelic, and he came away convinced that the tempo was the key element. Thanks! —mjb 02:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Children of Men edits

You might want to revisit the article, as the inclusion of citations in the plot subheader is in violation wth the film article template. I like what you propose, but you have to find a place elsewhere to include citations. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 21:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milkshake

The Milkshake article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. If you think your efforts to improve that article would be aided if new and unregistered users were blocked from editing that article, please let me know and I will protect the article. Thanks. -- Jreferee (Talk) 07:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam?

Hiya, thank you for your constructive edits. Do however take note of the guidelines for advertising or things that look like advertising. Your last edit to sound reinforcement systems seemed to be over the edge of what is acceptable, leaning too much towards being an advertisment. Happy editing! Martijn Hoekstra 16:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Priest

What's with the seemingly random rewrites on the Judas Priest article? Some of the prose is an improvement, but some of the other things you changed are clunkier now. You even added some weasel words, despite an attempt to remove them. Wtf, m8? Howa0082 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] heavy metal stuff

Hi Nazamo

First I have to congratulate for the great job you did in the heavy metal article but this is on one particular edit that I wanted to discuss here. I saw you removed the section on consecutive fifths. While your reason may appear justified, I have to stress the fact you apparently believed something wrong. You indeed seem to have understood that the sources were supposed to support the claim about the use in heavy metal. But of course not! I didn’t put them to support the claim that heavy metal uses parallel fifths!

Actually I put these sources on request of Ceoil

“Can you cite the statement: "The use of consecutive fifths and octaves is a violation of an important rule of harmony and classical aesthetic". Thanks.”

A comment that you can check by yourself on my talk page here and you also can check that the sources were added just a while after the request the HM historic page.

These sources were added to support the existence of this rule in classical music. So of course HM is not mentioned in them...

So no, my intellectual honesty is certainly not questionable concerning that issue, as your comment seems to suggest here:

"This appears to be Original Research. Yes, there are sources from various Classical encyclopaedias, but none mention HM."

Original research, the use of parallel fifths in heavy metal? Come on, this claim is easily verifiable empirically… I didn’t thought it was necessary to prove it as I thought it was obvious. But ok I can provide countless musical examples of HM using them. I will provide some.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Nazamo for your reply.
I really appreciate your sense of objectivity and your methodological approach but I’m afraid you misinterpreted my basic point in the article considering the content of your reply. Let me take it point by point.
Concerning your quote thanks for providing it, but I was already aware of everything about it, since I myself wrote a large part of this quote. So I certainly agree with it. This sentence most particularly:
“So it is irrelevant to criticize popular music for using such chords, for it never was concerned by the observance of these rules. Popular music’s compositional approach is freer, more intuitive and is not concerned by the complex classical theories of polyphonic structures”
it was written by ME. Yes I did.This too:
“In this approach, power chords are not considered as composed of independent parts that happen to coincide.”
So I can assure you there is nothing in this quote that contradicts the point I raised about parallel fifths in the HM article.This is where I realize you guys apparently misunderstood the point I raised since you seem to believe anything in this quote can contradict it.This point you removed is not meant to criticize Popular music for using Parallel fifths! Of course not. And of course it is a stylistic issue. That’s my point.
Basically the point was meant to dissipate the beliefs that claim Metal descends from classical. A view which is wrong. Because these music genres are different by essence. Classical is erudite music and Heavy metal is Popular music. But anyway the Parallel fifth comment is just a minor detail among others concerning this claim: The difference includes also the following facts.
1.Classical has a heavy theory of harmony, with lot of obligations and interdictions. While Heavy metal is freer in his compositional approach.
2.Classical is a strict written tradition, a classical work is defined first by its written score whereas Heavy metal song is first defined by its original recording.
3.Common practice classical music never or rarely used modal scales. Only late modern classical music made use of them. Whereas Metal most pre-eminent scales are modal.
4.Classical has a polyphonic comprehension of Harmony whereas Metal like many popular music often uses harmony like global block and doesn’t dissect them in independent parts like classical does..
5.Classical music extensive make use of complex techniques of composition such as strict academic counterpoint (not free counterpoint that pop music including metal may sometime use) and fugue as well as a use of polyphonic structure within the vertical harmony.
As for the guy who claims that chords can actually employ parallel fifths in classical. Sorry, but he's wrong. And I’m so sure of that, that I can challenge him to provide any examples from Mozart, Beethoven and any composer from the common practice period. There’s no doubt that chords progression by these composers don’t use such parallel movements even in instrumental accompaniment. And I can provide countless examples of such music without a single trace of Parallel fifths EVEN in CHORDS. Sure occasional exceptions to this rule can be found in case of chromatic context (where they re indeed licit), bass doubling to the octave most notably.
You also can find some exceptional example of free parallel fifths in Mozart’s divertimento for two horns and strings called “ A Musical Joke" (Ein Musikalischer Spaß, K. 522) ” .
But this was precisely meant to be a parody of popular musicians of his time for their extensive use of parallel fifths.
But yes, historically the parallel fifths rule does come from the polyphonic voice leading. So originally they used to concern only polyphonic chants. But that was in medieval music and Renaissance. But since then this rule has been extended to any ensemble in the common practice classical period. Until it was abolished by modern 20th century classical music. But modern classical is quite different from Common practice classical music. And Heavy metal rarely refers to modern classical music.
So sorry, but my point remains unchanged.
If my original point has been misinterpreted, then I agree it’s important to reword it to make it clear that nothing is meant to criticize or be condescending to Heavy metal. But I stick to it.
Unless the guy can provide extensive examples of parallel fifths even in chords in common practice classical music. Which I’m certain he cannot apart from the licit exceptions I mentioned.
Hope I dissipated certain misunderstandings.
Greetings
PS: at any rate, your French is wonderful! I wish I could speak English as well as that.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Jack Swing

Yes, but having the songs listed the way they currently are (rather than in a table or bulleted) is difficult to read -- and seeing as it's basically a list it should be displayed that way. And while I agree we need chart positions to show that songs merit being included in the article; I see no reason why why can't just list them like:

  • Keith Sweat - I Want Her (#1 R&B, #5 Hot 100) 1987

etc. rather than having unnecessary text like "The next year, (song) by (artist) reached the number (#) position on the US charts and (#) on the US R&B chart....." or whatever. It doesn't add anything to the article. Nathan86 (talk) 05:51, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shotgun

I appreciate that you were using what the article said. However, the article is not accurate. Shotguns are not only common in the US military, they are actually increasing due in part to our involvement more urbanized environments. Only a few years ago, the Dept. of Defense solicited a submissions for a new shotgun, which they've purchased in large number. The author of your article is writing from a very traditional point of view. And simply going by comparing them in strict numbers compared to rifles etc is misleading. For example, shotguns can be found in the arms rooms of many, many military units but mortars would be found in far less. Should we call mortars "uncommon"? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Escape from New York

I wouldn't mind if someone edits what I put under the Plot of Escape from New York, but please keep the main stroy details and plot there, and don't leave anything important out. I read it over and it was missing a few important details. I felt it was good "word count" wise where I had it, yet had enough detail to explain the story. If you want to change it...I guess you can as long as important story elements are kept in. I only added what I felt necissary, and it looked like you made it "too" short that is why I changed your edits. Well Have a nice day - Prede (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jam band

Hi, I like seeing your edits to the Jam band article giving them more readability. There is a direction I was trying to keep in the opening paragraphs that appears to be getting lost again. When I first started working on the article last year I was un-nerved by some of the false statements about history of the use of the term which was basically muddling up the history of rock music itself. Cream, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa and Pink Floyd were being listed as "first generation jam band" which is flat out rediculous as for starters there were no "jam bands" in the sixties. So I made an effort on two separate fronts. The first: being careful about when the term is used historically and the other: is to identify "jam band" as a largely cultural term, which it most certainly was in it's first use in the 1990's.

The current edit (yours) states "While the seminal late 1960s jam band group, Grateful Dead, were originally categorized as psychedelic rock band[3], by the 1990s and 2000s, jam bands existed within a variety of genres...." This implies that a "jam band" could exist in the 1960s and/or prior to the 1990s. It opens a can of worms in that once again young rock history enthusiasts will again be trying to discern who is and who isn't "jam band" from the sixties. After all, Led Zeppelin for exapmple did indeed jam performing 3 hour crossgenre sets. Was Led Zeppelin a jam band? That may sound like a rediculous question, but over time it will be innocently considered. - Steve3849 talk 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dana Glover

She describes her own music as Southern Soul on her myspace page. Is that enough to classify her genre on her Wiki page as Southern Soul? It is hard to classify IMO, it sounds country, soul, gospel and alternative at different listening moments within the same song. Elements of all involved. Alatari (talk) 13:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

You had worked on other music articles leading me to believe you would have a serious opinion or sources at the ready. Alatari (talk) 12:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] mtv

i have no problem with the statement, put mtv on the map, im sure i never altered it a second time. Feel free to alter it to that. I might bring in a source to enforces how he helped end racism on mtv but the map line is correct and accurate. Realist2 (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome!

Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Kirill 18:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wilco

Your insertion of the material failed to take into account whether or not it was inseted well and was well-written. Inserting "roots rock" into the first sentence and into the musical style was forced and ill-written. Additionally, there's no reason to put it in the first sentence, which is supposed to be as general as possible. If it were to be more specific, there are other genres that would be selected first (alt-rock, alt-country, and so forth.) As Wilco is a Featured Article and is supposed to represent the best of Wikipedia, just shoving in unformated references is not a good idea. I suggest discussing adding such material with the article's primary editor, User:Teemu08. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Teemu08 controls the article. I'm saying he's worked on it a lot and is quite the expert on Wilco, so it would be prudent to seek his opinion. WesleyDodds (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Video Arcades

Game features of the 2000s you might want to include: Card readers such as the ones in Maximum Tune 2 and the Initial D series; Dance Dance Revolution dance pads; motion/position sensing such as that in Mocap Boxing in 2001; Flat screen LCD monitors. There isn't much in the 2000s we didn't have in the 1990s. Moving cockpit cabinets such as Sega G-LOC were popular in the 1990s, as well as multiple speakers with subwoofers.----Asher196 (talk) 17:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hip Hop

Great writing on Hip Hop--but one issue I would appreciate your help on. Hip Hop is supposed to be a brief portal article, and not a clone of Hip Hop History, Hip Hop Culture, etc. A lot of what you added may be better served on the more in-depth component pages. Rather than fill your talk page with the "why," you would probably get more out of checking the protracted discussions (and votes, etc) on the talk pages of Hip Hop Culture, Hip Hop Music, and Hip Hop. Thanks, and again, great writing. -RoBoTamice 14:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Military history WikiProject coordinator elections

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Kirill 18:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Milhist coordinators election has started

The February 2008 Military history WikiProject coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting nine coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of fifteen candidates. Please vote here by February 28. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pedal keyboard

Re. your message on my talk page: Sounds good to me. I didn't know that the pedal keyboard really had a great deal of usage differently in jazz than it does in classical music... plays the bass line, etc. Technique, I suppose, is different. I kind of regarded it as those sections on the bottom of Toccata and Fugue in D minor and Organ (music), where people simply list random sightings of the T&F and the organ in popular culture, which is pretty much useless. Two articles doesn't sound like a bad idea to me, as long as there's enough information on both subjects. We should propose it on the WikiProject Pipe Organ pages. —Cor anglais 16 17:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Early naval vessels of New Zealand

Hi Nazamo. Thank you for the excellent structural edits you made on this article – much appreciated --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Morrissey

Yes, you are right here. I checked it and no source required here. The edit was reverted by McGeddon per WP:TONE. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uzeb, and other things

I noted your contribution to the Uzeb article. Uzeb is one of my favourite jazz bands. I added to the discography section of the article a key compilation album that I also happen to own. Do you listen to them much? Do you know other bands that make similar jazz music? I read your editing modus operandi on your user page. I like your approach. I, too, persevere to edit the way you do. Here is an A-class article that I have been working on — Ilaiyaraaja. I've had it nominated twice for FA status. No luck. Could you perhaps in your free time have a glance at it? There could be deficiencies in need of fixing that my perhaps subjective eyes are unwilling to pick up. Thanking you, AppleJuggler (talk) 03:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIV (February 2008)

The February 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Review text

No problem. I just wasn't sure. MixSup? 22:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of List of radio DJs

I have nominated List of radio DJs, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of radio DJs. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rtphokie (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXV (March 2008)

The March 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Lust, Caution - your removal of anachronisms section on 26 March

Without being sure that I agree with your premise about the criterion for whether these should be included, do you consider Bryan Appleyard to be a "reputable critic"? If so then I refer you to his blog here: http://www.bryanappleyard.com/blog/2008/01/protocol-problem-and-lust-caution-taxi.php which would seem to meet your criterion. Paul Christensen (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Absent any immediate response I have reinserted the Anachronisms section with additional citations as above. Let's discuss further on Discussion page there if you wish. Paul Christensen (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the support!

Thanks for the support. I do look forward to seeing the work on the Canadian blues page... that page has such potential - imagine what it would look like if even one or two editors creating articles on anyone who's ever bobsledded in the Olympics took a day off of that and helped you reference or add material. You could have a comprehensive, fully reference Good Article in less than 24 hours! I guess I laid it out on my talk page, but I think we're doing good on the number of articles... it's time to start fixing up and, if necessary, cleaning out, the ones we've already got.

Let me know if you want more detailed suggestions on any Canadian article - I'm still a part of Wikiproject Canada, but the sheer volume of articles made it impossible to leave detailed comments while assessing. Cheers, CP 20:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVI (April 2008)

The April 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Double bass

Your ideas seem good. It's good to have the instrument's nicknames, and I think where they are now is good (though I thought the instrument was sometimes called "doghouse" in addition to "doghouse bass"). The section referring to important repertoire should probably summarize, in prose, the most important composers and works, and a separate article could include more notable works. I started one like this, for example, called List of oboe concertos. Badagnani (talk) 04:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

List of compositions for violin and orchestra is probably a better model. Badagnani (talk) 05:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit counter

This is easy.[5] Also the user profile in "preferences" gives the number of edits. Ty 04:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Natalie Portman

Although I appreciate your attempts at cleaning up the article, I think you are making too many sweeping, unilateral conclusions about what should and should not be in the article. As just one example (which I have restored), the info on Erdos-Bacon number has been discussed on Talk with no consensus to remove it. And bear in mind that your comment "appears to be nonsense??" is your opinion and does not carry enough weight to overturn consensus. You might want to take a look at the talk page before slashing more of the article out. There may be other of your removals that I will restore when I have more time, but for the time being, let me make a polite request that you slow down and consider discussing some of your concerns on the talk page before bulldozing your way through the article any more. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"Be bold" is fine. Just don't forget a more fundamental Wikipedia policy: consensus. Sometimes it's better to discuss your "bold" ideas on talk before making decisions on your own to make major changes that might be controversial. Ward3001 (talk) 04:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portman's Erdős–Bacon number

I personally don't see the need to repeat what the reader can find simply by clicking the link to Erdős–Bacon number, and I suspect someone will remove the "gloss" later, but this is not a point that I consider important enough to revert. Ward3001 (talk) 03:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

"could there be cases where the article is licensed to another location, in such a way that the Wikilinks don't work?": Not quite sure I understand your question. A wikilink will always work if it's properly formatted and a target article exists. Maybe you mean an inline external link, such as this one. Those will always work unless the URL changes. Ward3001 (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
"When Wikipedia articles are licensed to other websites (under the GFDL), I was wondering if the licensees always import the wikitext HTML markup, including the Wikilinks. Could it be that in some cases, a Wikipedia article appears just as "text", with inoperative Wikilinks? If this were the case, then it would help to justify adding glosses": Wikipedia's free license allows any website to use it's material. It isn't licensed to any specific websites. And Wikipedia has no responsibilities to other websites that use its materials. So if they copy wikilinks that don't work on their sites, that's their problem, not Wikipedia's. Ward3001 (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Keytar Article

Keytar Article.

Hi, I'm jeffrey abbott and i would like to clarify a few things in regards to your edits. I decided to correspond with you here before attempting to edit the work you did on the article.

First, The information about who owned the first "Moogs" came from, me not only for the Wikipedia article but also for the London Times story which represents the source thats being accepted as fact. It's important i feel to qualify this.

Second The "strap on" keyboard reference you used came from an antiquated story about an instrument that never really came to market. For the record, the Representative for Lag in the U.S. and I had a dialogue about my possible involvement with the instrument and i declined because i thought the design and especially the price point was not realistic.( It WAS an amazing piece of wood!)

I REALLY feel the "strap on reference could and should be removed and replaced with the words " Portable-Keyboard"

Third: This paragraph is VERY important to the article because it helps define the evolution of " Keytar-Keytaring"

"The term “keytar” also refers to the ability to emulate the playing style and sound of an electric or acoustic guitar via a synthesizer, sampler or computer.[1]

I would like it re-introduced to the article.

Fourth: There is musical inaccuracy in this line that i would like to clear up.

A key difference is that toys generally have one- or two-note polyphony,

Fifth: My use of the term "Keytar" and the authenticating of that became an issue back when it was included in the original article. I believe other editors addressed this already and also this fact was again used in the London Times article. I seem to have been the subject of much debate both in this article and the list article for reasons that are beyond my comprehension. As always i can be contacted for clarification questions etc. at keytarjeff@comcast.net

I will make no edits on the Keytar article without your permission/blessing so i can avoid the wrath of editors.. Thanks,jeff —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.100.56 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Jeff, When I came to the article, I saw the section on the first owners of the Moogs, and, noting that there was no source, I toned down the claim, by giving less details. If there are details or strong claims, it needs a source. I will check on the London Times story .

You suggest that "strap on" keyboard reference could be replaced with Portable-Keyboard"..that sounds reasonable.

Hi, the SoundonSound paragraph you have is good. Sorry if I removed it. "The term “keytar” also refers to the ability to emulate the playing style and sound of an electric or acoustic guitar via a synthesizer, sampler or computer.[2]

Sorry for introducing an error regarding toys...generally have one- or two-note polyphony.

The authenticating of the term needs to be from a verifiable source, in print.

Regarding "I will make no edits on the Keytar article without your permission/blessing so i can avoid the wrath of editors..", we are all equals (except for the administrators), so I think disputes should be settled based on whose argument has the most merit (based on Wikipedia rules, standard professional researching and editing norms, and so on)OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC) .................................................................................................................................... Thanks Much for the kind&fair response! I re-introduced on part i thought was important, jeff www.jeffreyabbott.vom —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffrey abbott (talk • contribs) 00:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXVII (May 2008)

The May 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)