User talk:Semitransgenic/Archive

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Osho do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dekisugi (talk) 11:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I knew you'd mistakenly reverted my edit. So please ignore my message above. It was just automatically clicked using WP:TW. Happy editing! Dekisugi (talk) 12:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Image-Belville4.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Belville4.jpg. The copy called Image:Belville4.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Do not make further inappropriate personal comments. "Outing" the offline identity of a Wikipedia editor who wishes to remain anonymous is grounds for immediate and indefinite blocking. You've been warned repeatedly and will not be warned again. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I remind you that the standard is "comment on the edits, not the editors". That is especially true on article talk pages. I've already told you that the correct place to discuss conflict of interest if WP:COIN. Making bad faith accusations against me doesn't help your case. Please try to focus on writing a good article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Techno

(responding to your comments/questions on my user talk page)

Thanks for taking up the cause of being the principal curator of the techno article for a while. You're doing great work! Thanks also for tackling that old material that I recently restored from someone's botched attempt to undo some contentious edits. Even though there's still a lot to be done, you and a couple other regular editors have done a great job bringing the article closer to the standards of today's Wikipedia. When standards were looser and sources were rarely cited, I used to be a very active contributor to the article. But maintenance became too much of a time-suck, as the article keeps attracting an ever-increasing number of anonymous, ill-informed contributors with poor writing skills, a phenomenon which you may have noticed. Also, the knowledge that comes from techno's fan base apparently is rife with folklore and regional pride, and some of that bias even bubbles up into journalism, so you can probably find a reference for just about any claim, if you lower your standards for reliability of sources enough.

Re: May, 909, and house, this is an example of folklore that is really only supported by interviews and magazine articles, both of which tend to have zero fact-checking and a lot of statements made to generate interest and/or drama. Everyone has their own take on what happened. You have to characterize everything in terms of "Atkins claims", "May claims", and so forth. (If you've ever heard May talk, you know he makes a lot of grandiose claims.)

I didn't used to feel this way, but nowadays I wouldn't take anything written about techno music to be gospel. Explicitly attribute to its sources anything even potentially controversial; don't state things as fact, and don't even generalize. For example, "One critic says" with a single reference is better than "Many critics say", regardless of references.

I'm having trouble finding it now, but in private email, a journalist who has been in contact with all of the key Detroit players told me to be especially wary of sources that elevate the role of Eddie Fowlkes. He used to not even be mentioned in the article, but he has a reputation among his peers of being a whiner who feels slighted by historians, so he has long been on a mission to vent his "I was there"/"I'm an originator too" side of the story. The Belleville Three, I guess for the sake of good relations and good publicity, don't contest it, but privately have had some unkind things to say about Fowlkes being a hanger-on in the early days. As time goes on, though, I think it becomes less important to know his exact role in techno's formative years. He was on the Ten Records compilation, which we could say is the first source to brand him a techno artist, so we're only talking about a short period of time before that where his involvement with the scene is questioned. So maybe it doesn't matter.

IIRC, the underage club scene is mentioned in Techno Rebels, although I don't know if it goes into the detail that someone did in that paragraph you're asking about. Only the the first sentence of that paragraph was my doing, and even that may have been an edit of someone else's less well-crafted contribution. I have the book and can look into it if you like. I do recall The Music Institute gets mentioned a lot, but I don't recall seeing info about its contemporaries. To answer your question, I don't know the exact time period. Early and mid-'80s I believe, and ending with the closure of The Music Institute. You might go back through the article history and see who added it.

I feel pretty strongly about the sparse, mechanical, disco-soul song "Techno City" being more techno than electro, and the dense, computery, "No UFOs" being more electro than techno, but neither tune is exclusively one or the other. It's easy to Google and find people pointing to "Clear" (1983) or even "Alleys of Your Mind" (1981) as the first techno songs, and then when you go back that far, still more people start pointing to "Shari Vari", Giorgio Moroder productions, and Kraftwerk songs. The "Some commentators, who believe things are not so clear-cut…" paragraph was my attempt to mitigate what, at the time, seemed like a barrage of edits by people insisting that those older examples are the first techno cuts. So yeah, the "some commentators" really are our fellow Wikipedians! I know it's not kosher, but by merely mentioning those tracks and giving them an air of legitimacy, it was an effective way to pacify the proponents of those theories and discourage sloppy attempts to add those examples back in. It was either that or aggressively police the article, deleting things on a daily basis.

I think we're all more than a bit guilty of wanting to find the oldest something made by a Detroiter (or German) that sounds like what techno eventually turned into, and declare it to be "seminal" or the "first" techno composition. It's all a matter of opinion, and everyone's got one. AFAIK, no music was called simply "techno" in print before Rushton's compilation came out, and we shouldn't be speculating otherwise. The best we can do is characterize other people's claims about what came first as exactly that: speculation.

Re: Juan's MySpace blurb, at least as you quoted it, it appears to have been adapted from something written by a third party, since it refers to "Juan", no? So I wouldn't accept it as having much weight. In any case, I get the impression that naming genres and pointing to "seminal" works is something the Detroit musicians prefer to leave to fans and aspiring journalists & historians. The Detroit guys never seem to have much interest in getting very precise about what kicked things off when; they mainly just care about where and who. :)

Going forward, please give some consideration to adding specific quotations to every reference you cite. Some of the citation templates have a quote field for this purpose, and you can just add a quote after the ones that don't. I've done this in the acid house and Afro/Cosmic music articles, and I think it works well. Besides being of benefit to researchers evaluating the sources, it helps you better formulate the prose, because you have to make sure the statement in the article doesn't misrepresent the quotation.

Thanks again and good luck with the article. I probably won't be very active on it for a while yet. —mjb (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Osho at WP:COIN

Hello Semitransgenic. The editors who comment at WP:COIN often wish to find some path, any path, by which a reasonably neutral article can emerge, and we are usually not so concerned to reward or punish specific editors. You do seem to have some knowledge in this area, and thus you could contribute to making a better article. It is very tiresome to look at a lot of diffs, and it is sometimes quicker to try to figure out who has some ideas that might make the article better. If you believe that Jalal prevents you from making the article better, can you be specific? Can you give an example of an improvement that Jalal will not allow you to make? Note that WP:COIN has a suggested limit of 200 words on comments, and you have given extremely lengthy comments that go over the limit. If you can point us to a specific issue, it would be helpful. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Techno

What are precursors to techno, if you deny european electronic music was it? Or do you on the side of pov synth-made music can't have influence from other synth music just cos of the fact some two genres use futuristic synthetized melodies? I'm really much interested in it. If you ne answer, i won't mind. Thanks. -- 86.57.254.215 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Studioshot.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Studioshot.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Studioshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Studioshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 09:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Reasonshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Reasonshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Album covers

I noticed you uploaded a number of album covers to Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that if you do not own the rights to the artwork, you cannot license it as a self-published work. Album artwork is usually copyrighted by the album publisher or artist. Just64helpin (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Photographed derivatives of the artwork are still affected by the original copyright holder. Just64helpin (talk) 15:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the license templates to reflect non-free use. Some of the images have already been uploaded to Wikipedia, however. Just64helpin (talk) 15:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

The previously-uploaded images are used in the articles about the albums, i.e. Computer World and Computer Games (album). Please note though that a fair use rationale would be needed for their use in the techno article. Just64helpin (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose the clear-cut way would be to use the "upload a new version of this file" option in the image page. However, the existing rationale for the Computer Games image specifically points out its low resolution, which is in keeping with the non-free album licensing. If you use the "upload a new version of this file" option, please make sure to specify in the image description field why a larger resolution is needed (in a encyclopedic context) and change the "resolution" field in the rationale. Just64helpin (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In case you've forgotten, the images still need fair use rationales for use in the techno article. Just64helpin (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the rationale. However, you seem to have added rationale to the duplicate Kraftwerk and George Clinton images rather than the previously-uploaded ones. Just64helpin (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I also noticed that you uploaded a third Computer World image. Would you care to explain this? Just64helpin (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The duplicate George Clinton image is exactly the same file as the one used the Computer Games article. Since you uploaded the non-blurry image directly into George_Clinton-Computer_Games_(album_cover).jpg, there is no need to use the other one. I also moved your rationale there. Just64helpin (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:TofflerFuture.JPG

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TofflerFuture.JPG. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MER-C 12:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Studioshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Studioshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Reasonshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Reasonshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Kraftwerk-computer-world.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kraftwerk-computer-world.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TofflerFuture.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:TofflerFuture.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Techno sound

To clarify my earlier edit, WP:MOS states that a header should not start with "the" unless it is part of a proper noun. Is "The Sound" really a proper noun used to describe the sound of Detroit techno? Just64helpin (talk) 13:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Detroit sound" would have the same effect as "The sound" or any phrase beginning with "the". Just64helpin (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Detroit sound" is not a proper noun, and this is the point of this discussion. Proper nouns would be The Matrix, The Beatles, etc. Treating a phrase as if it were proper noun does not make it so. Simply reverting edits without actually attempting to come to an agreement is not the way to proceed. WP:3RR exists for a reason. I see no reason to treat the techno article differently from all the other articles that omit "the", even when it "seems odd". I'm sure you are aware on the policy relating to personal attacks as well. Just64helpin (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I jumped to conclusions -- I had assumed you went ahead and reverted the edit after you contacted me. Please ignore my 3RR-related comments. Just64helpin (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

acousmatic

Hi. I was actually just adding the partner tag to Acousmatic music, as there was already a merge tag at Acousmatic when I first saw it (last night). I don't know anything about the topics themselves. The admin Hyacinth added the merge tag originally.

Also, on a more abstract/general note, there is no requirement to start a talkpage thread for merges, when adding merge tags (see Wp:Merge#How to merge pages). Only when there is a likelihood/possibility of disagreement/complication, is it necessary to have a discussion; just boldly merging articles is allowed, if you stumble upon articles with merge tags that should obviously be merged (perhaps the person who added the tags was just tentatively raising the possibility, or they simply didn't have the expertise/time to do it themselves, so tagged it for the next person who came along). Anyway, that's all abstract rambling :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, move acousmatic to acousmatic sound (which only has one edit, so you can just move it (Special:MovePage/Acousmatic) on top). Or ask at the discussion page first, if you're unsure. :)

They need to refer more clearly to each other though, and avoid repetition where possible.

The first option is to add a clearer summary style.

The second option is to merge them (under whatever title), in order to have a single more-developed article. All the sources/reading/external links are duplicated between the articles, so it would seem to be a good candidate for merging. There's nothing wrong with an article being 75% about a subtopic.

It all boils down [it always seems to me] to the Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies. In this case, Mergism vs Separatism. I tend to favour mergism, as being a step along a path towards an end goal of featured article status, and also a better focus/impetus for collaborative editing. But, sometimes the short/concise articles are good to find, too; both for ease of reading and editing. I'll leave it all up to you :) -- Quiddity (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikicookie

I am awarding you this WikiCookie for your constructive edits on Wikipedia--LAAFan 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Electronic Art Music

Don't you dare merge Electronic Art Music with Electronic Music. We came up with the "art" name fair and square. Now real life books and articles are starting to use EAM because of our work here on this page. We are using wikipedia to change the world and revise history to a better view. Please don't interfere or question us. Who cares if people and the media only use phrases like Electronic Music or Dance Music? This is our encyclopaedia, written by us. As long as we can find a written article in a publication to back us up, there's no problem! Electronic Dance Music and Electronic Art Music - we invented it and we're proud. Please don't turn this into another Space Music or Alice Bailey. Thank you for stepping down and stopping from pursuing this move any further, it will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamaha303 (talk • contribs) 10:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Please direct you objection to the discussion page on the matter. Please present your case in the appropriate context. The term is not unique to Wikipedia, therefore was not invented here as you seem to think. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Semitransgenic. You have new messages at Prom3th3an's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. Just a pointer (feel free to delete afterwards) to WP:ARCHIVE, which details the preferred method of archiving talkpages. (Basically: copy the contents to a subpage, such as User talk:Semitransgenic/Archive 1, and add a link to that, at the top of this page. or other alternatives listed there) :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Citations. I'm not positive. I'll point to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and let you read/interpret. My guess would be that you're doing it correctly, based on your explanation, and if you're actively thinking about the issue; it's the people that don't think (and the controversial topics), that the policies/guidelines are codified [and proliferating] for! Generally we can just use Wikipedia:Trifecta ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Helpful tips

Hi, just informing you that the <ref> should be placed immediately after punctuation. Just64helpin (talk) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify my other edits: the links you added to the "See also" section are already used in-line, and free tekno is a separate article from freetekno. Just64helpin (talk) 14:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Another clarification: the name of the article should not be used in headers, unless it is part of a distinct term (eg. "minimal techno") or a proper noun ("Techno Rebels"). Just64helpin (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least explain how "Techno alliance" is clear as to what the subsection is actually about? I'm citing WP:MOS guidelines for my tips. Just64helpin (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The subsection mentions the record, but the subsection is not exclusively about the record. The header should give some idea to the reader of what the subsection is about before reading through it. It shouldn't "tease", though that may not have been your intention. Just64helpin (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

IDM

Hi, please let me edit what I want for an hour, then criticise later because I'm still working on it. I lost a bit of what I typed because of your quick reversion. I've got a source. We can discuss and refine it afterwards? No wonder nobody edits this article much, if someone can't even finish editing it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Orange (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) What do you think now? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Orange (talk • contribs) 17:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC) Hi again, a source was put up to back up the "EDM electronic dance music" and "IDM" sentence, so I checked it out. It mentions neither EDM not IDM, but it does say electronic music for Warp Records! Did you mean to add another source? The citation doesn't match up with the sentence and in fact shows that the sentence is not right. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chocolate Orange (talk • contribs) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Hi, I've changed the sentence to something less academic and vague, and backed up the home listening techno bit with a specific allmusic.com source. I hope it's ok. Your post-rave sentence was really bad honestly :P I've gone through the article and modified the contentious bits and softened the claims and added good sources to back it up. You did say don't edit again, but I think we didn't actually disagree that much, I agree with the claims, the problem was the wording, and I've also tried to address the tagged missing source bits. Of course it may not satisfy you completely, so please let me know what you think Chocolate Orange (talk) 08:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) You're doing a good job. Glad to see your talent with sources because it's great. I hope to see more of your work on the IDM page, because I believe you'll really improve the article a great deal with your magnificent talent. I'm going to step aside because I just can't keep up with your superhuman brain ;-) Chocolate Orange (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Er, I was serious! ;-) Keep editing IDM man, I want to see you make it a great article. Honestly I give up, just go for it!!!!!!!!!!! I don't really care that much about post-rave sentence, I thought it was a bit too stuffy, but it's no big deal. It wasn't a put down at all! You're good I think

Rudolf Steiner article unbalanced

Please see my comment on your edit in the article's talk section. Thanks. --EPadmirateur (talk) 19:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear S.t., I have said all I intend to say on the Rudolf Steiner talk page... sorry if I went on a bit. I hope you get the page to a statement that you're happy with and which you can really feel is NOT propaganda. Best wishes Eebahgum (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Tiny Rowland article unbalanced

Semitransgenic - You have requested more balance in the Tiny Rowland article. Can you provide references to additional material which would supply such balance please? If no sources can be found, then the tag will need to be removed. Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Semitransgenic - if you had to add one incident to the Tiny Rowland article to improve balance, what would it be? Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

AfD tag

Hi semitransgenic. Do you intend to complete the AfD nomination process for Aztec entheogenic complex that you'd started, or have you reconsidered? --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the article's deletion discussion page, which ought to be Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aztec entheogenic complex, has not been set up. Once that is done then the listing should show up on the day's log when you go to add it. (BTW, while I think the article in question is rather poor and contains some unsound points, other points are valid and entheogenic agents were a component of Aztec cultural practices; so IMO deletion may not be warranted.) Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 00:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't promise to do anything about it immediately, but might be able to turn to it in the next week or thereabouts.--cjllw ʘ TALK 02:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I can easily see how the word 'complex' in that title can be ambiguously interpreted. I see that another of my colleagues here has renamed it to Aztec use of entheogens, which should at least be clearer. Regards, --cjllw ʘ TALK 01:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re. Insanity (radio)

Hello and thank you for contacting me. Well, I would suggest nominating this article for deletion. If the article is thereby deleted, it cannot be recreated (the page will be salted if someone tries to recreate the article again). Regards, Húsönd 15:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

example.com ref

Did you really mean to write this reference like you did? It's not a very useful citation. —mjb (talk) 15:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Delia Derbyshire

Glad you're diligent in patrolling these articles; however, adding tag regarding lack of references or orginal research is not helpful with comments. Which statements needs references? Which sections appear to be original research? Please expand on this in the talk section.Konczewski (talk) 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Noise music

Hello Semitransgenic. I do not understand how you dare erase all the work I have been adding into the Noise music page. If you think the additional information is false or needs more citations then please get specific. OK? As is you have wasted my day for no good reason that I can see. Sure one can always want more citations but this is getting silly. I am a New York City based archivist who specializes in avante-garde music and art so I think I know about what I am writing. I was there for much of it myself (yes I am not young). Wiki is still new to me but if this is the reaction to my participation I will complain and cease working on it. Can you rather than erasing all I have done - add to it?

Thanks. Valueyou (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Got your message. So be specific. Much of what I convey is obvious from the links in the statements. Do you want books that tell you that Futurism was important to noise music with page #? Let me know where you want to see other references and I will provide them - but I am not going to waste another day unless you give mr specifics. Cause content nazis roll like that.

Valueyou (talk) 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Got your new message. I was working from my notebooks and I am in Europe on vacation, but as soon as I get back to New York I will get the books out and add in the page #s. Thanks. Valueyou (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Osho

Removing other editors comments is considered vandalism, please don't do it. I have no desire to get into an edit war with you on this, but I will not be intimidated by a bully either. jalal (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Semi, I've done my best to put up with your agressive style, and by nature I'm a patient man, but your insistence on pissing over others contributions to discussions can be tiring. As I say, I'm patient, but not (yet) a saint. (for those wondering, this is in response to a comment left on my talk page... go figger) jalal (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Osho discussion dispute

Rather than seek out a single administrator, I would suggest you try to gain input from the community or from multiple administrators. If this is a specific issue of disruption related to one other user, you could raise the issue at WP:ANI. If it is a content matter, you could start a Request for Comment at the article's talk page. If a Request for Comment route has already been tried and was not successful in resolving the matter, you could try moving further along in the dispute resolution process. Alternatively, for a simple third opinion about content, you could try WP:3O, which can sometimes be quite helpful and provide quicker resolution than a Request for Comment. Cirt (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: your question

The current case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war. Not directly related to the COI issue, though. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

your sock-puppet charge is false

Your sock puppet charge against me is utterly false. I know who Tellus archivist is in real live - AND HE IS NOT ME! So please withdraw this false claim. Valueyou (talk) 12:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

OK I have responded on the sock-puppet page. Is that all I need to do? You know the rules here I and simply do not. Can't they check pur ip addresses or something? Valueyou (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No I don't think I will pull up my socks. I will just check out. You must have a lot more time on your hands than I do.Valueyou (talk) 12:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes OK I had read those back when you started monitoring my edits. When I supplied book references you asked for page #s which I said I could provide on my return to NYC. But now the page is again an ugly mess and frankly I feel frustrated. Now I see you have flagged the Tellus page that I was helping Tellus archivist (real name Laurent) with. So that asks for more work now. I worked for over a month on the Noise Music page and thought it was about there (even found this on the edit page"18 September 2008 87.202.229.232 (Talk) (36,414 bytes) (I find this essay very well achieved via the multiple editors. Good work editor(s))." And for this I now get accused of sock-puppetry. Man it just is not worth my time. I was happy to help out but this is futile. Your self described 'nazi' oversight is rarely applied to the vast majority of wiki pages. You are asking for a book ref with page # on almost every sentence. I suppose you get your kicks by flagging. Valueyou (talk) 13:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You say I should "tone down my adgenda". What do you think my adgenda is?

Your adgenda seems to make evolving pages ugly to the reader by throwing up

flags -- turning them off to the wiki project. Valueyou (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Then please withdraw your sockpuppet attack on me (not very WP:GF) and remove the Unreferenced and Original research flags at the Noise Music and Tellus pages and deal with the specific issues you have on the talk pages. These flags turn off users of the wikipedia. Valueyou (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything all taken care of, huh? Always glad to help... (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How about some mediation and general cooling-off?

As I've told Valueyou, this conflict needs to cool down - and cool down quickly - or someone is going to get blocked. How about we close up that sockpuppet page and stop with the sockpuppetry allegations? It's getting too crazy to even read that page! Valueyou has been pretty forthcoming about the various accounts and the RFCU supported her version. She even admitted that Taxisfolder was a different person but that they had stopped working in their office and Valueyou took over his/her duties. That's actually more forthcoming than she needed to be since no WP:SOCK violation was evident. Can you proceed to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation instead? Or some other form of WP:DR? —Wknight94 (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the above. You're obviously trying to get Valueyou on the right track, but the chemistry's not too good at the moment and you're not entirely without fault. I strongly recommend not using Third Reich metaphors, and "dude" is only going to irritate someone. As the user says they are not familiar with certain policies, a bit of WP:BITE may need to be applied here. But don't try to do it all yourself, especially if it's getting to you. Follow WP:DR and involve others. Ty 15:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

"New user"

I'm inclined to agree with you from my past experience on that, but there's probably a lot of protocols that are still unknown. And sometimes even the basics can take a time to be properly understood, because they can be quite alien to the person's outside, habitual mode. Let's try to get it on track again, as there could be a profitable collaboration between the two of you, with some outside intervention when necessary. Ty 16:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well done. Self-awareness and improving tactics are the ways forward. I sometimes have to just cut off from wiki when I feel I'm getting heated over something - answer emails, do the washing up, post a letter or whatever. It's surprising how different and less crucial it looks 10 minutes, half an hour or a day later. Some similar issues have been occurring at Talk:Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? and Talk:Richard Hamilton (artist), which could have ended nastily, but we seem to have won through to a good collegiality by being rational, patient and also taking on board the user's views, showing them what wasn't appropriate and why, and helping to include what was right for the article. It can be a laborious process, and, after pointing to the generality of WP:NOR etc, it's probably necessary to focus right in on, say, a particular sentence, asking for the source text to be put on the talk page (if it's from a print source) and showing where it's been departed from via WP:SYNTH etc, and where it has been used validly, or how it can be. If the editor feels there is support and responds appropriately, then everyone (and wikipedia) wins out. If they fail to appreciate the help and respect the process, then it will reach an inevitable conclusion in due course (but not usually, on wiki, overnight!). Ty 16:37, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts is a good place to post to get editors' attention for relevant issues. Ty 16:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Complete over-reaction and quite unnecessary at this stage, when there is still dialogue to be had. RFCs take up a lot of community time. If you file, you will also be liable for censure. You are not blameless. Either step out or find middle ground with Valueyou. Please don't paste long explanations on people's pages. Just a short note with a link is ample. You haven't even specified which article you're talking about. Ty 13:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Thornton

I'm glad you're watching this. It evidently needs it. Ty 05:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is Sathya Sai Baba movement unbalanced?

Please explain at talk:Sathya Sai Baba movement why the article is unbalanced. I cannot edit the article myself because the arbcom thinks that I have a conflict of interest. Andries (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Space music: correspondence overview

Tagging endorsement from Gene_poole

I strongly endorse your comments concerning the Space music article. The article currently gives fulsome undue weight (largely via the contrivance of cherry-picked and/or misrepresented primary sources) to an unverifiable original research theory that can be summarised as follows: "all music programmed by the Hearts of Space radio show is "space music", no matter what the weight of contemporary opinion says - not because of stylistic or other characteristics peculiar to the music - but simply because it is broadcast by Hearts of Space".

The above theory has been singlemindedly insinuated into the article over a period of years by an editor who - as a self-confessed "fan" of the Hearts of Space show - has established a problematic proprietory attitude to the article, to the extent that almost any attempt to rectify the article's many problems is viewed by that individual as some sort of personal affront.

It is well nigh time that this situation changed, and I would be happy to work with you to try to find a way to achieve that outcome, if it interests you. --Gene_poole (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. If you haven't already seen it, take a look at the response to your comment that precedes mine, on the article talk page; WP:OWN writ large. Unfortunately it's typical of what has passed for "discussion" on the subject of "space music" for the past few years.

And just so you're aware of it, I'm the producer of a nationally-syndicated weekly FM radio show here in Australia, which shares some conceptual similarities, and a focus on musical content of a broadly ambient and atmospheric nature, with the Hearts of Space show.

This fact has been used repeatedly by the conflicted Space music owner to falsely suggest that a conflict of interest exists, because Hearts of Space is my "competitor" who I apparently deeply resent - and that therefore I should not edit Space music at all. No - really! I expect the accusation will shortly be trotted out like clockwork, yet again. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It certainly has potential to become messy :-)

Nonetheless, we need - in my opinion - to ensure the article is reconfigured such that it walks the very fine line between explaining how the HOS show and its producers were instrumental in popularising the term "space music" in the US (and their reasons for doing so) - while also making it clear that HOS' has always applied the term "space music" to recordings whose most prominent characteristic is their broadly low-key "atmospheric" nature - ie, more-or-less as a synonym for the sort of music that since the mid 1990s has popularly come to be referred to as "ambient" (of one sort or other).

This is not to suggest that space music = ambient - that is certainly not the case; however, with specific reference to the HOS radio show, the article must lose its present ambiguity and explicitly state that the music, albums and artists which most major contemporary broadcasters and commentators refer to as being "ambient" are more often than not, exactly the same music, albums and artists which HOS uniquely refers to as "space music". --Gene_poole (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Spacemusic: Milo initial communication

If you are, or aspire to be, a reputable scholar, I hope you are willing to put aside the premature closure you have expressed after examining only one reference. As required by the Wikipedia undue weight policy, merely that one reference has been, and must be, balanced against a hundred often conflicting other references. This reference balancing issue should be discussed at Talk:Space music, not here.

Since you have never heard of Hearts of Space, I can see why you think it's just another radio show. Why that might not be so should be discussed at Talk:Space music, not here, where you have so far heard only a one-sided view. Of course, it's already been thoroughly discussed in the archives.

Your interest does create an opportunity to work on the problems that have dogged the article from the beginning of non-American editors' work on it. I have several ideas about how this might be done. So far I haven't found a way to make them work, but a serious European space music editor might make the difference. Again, these ideas should be discussed at Talk:Space music, not here.

But first, as a courtesy from one presumed scholar to another, I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether or not you are able to read the Space music archives. If you are not able to (or don't reply), then I might reasonably assume that you haven't learned the context needed to work on the big picture issues. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 05:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit war warning: courtesy of Milo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

---

This template doesn't entirely make sense concerning an edit war on a talk page, but it's required to report you for edit warring -- which I have done. Milo 04:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Context: courtesy of Gene_poole

In repspone this comment the following points were highlighted:

"Motivated by longstanding unresolved ownership issues relating to that article, Milo has actively blocked numerous previous attempts at correcting this situation by engaging in overtly tendentious editing.

Sneering condescension, assertions of having "unique perspective and knowledge" of the subject, attempted intimidation, implicit and explicit threats, personal attacks and incessant filibustering are all recurrent characteristics of Milomedes' behaviour in this regard. There are also strong suspicions that sockpuppet abuse may also be part of the equation. This approach has largely succeeded in driving away virtally every editor who has tried to make a positive contribution to the article.

Semitransgenic's latest attempt to address the article's many WP:OR, WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE issues is the most cogent and well-considered approach that I have yet witnessed.

Milo's response - in attempting to subtly disrupt the process and provoke an imprudent reaction from Semitransgenic that allow's Milomedes to claim to be the subject of abuse - when in fact he is the perpetrator of it and other disruptive activity - is an established pattern of behaviour that has long been noted by a number of editors and admins." --Gene_poole (talk) 09:10, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Note from User:Will Beback: Talk page and reverting

I don't understand why you repeatedly deleted Milo's comments from the talk page. I also don't understand why you used an automated tool and called his edits "vandalism". Tools like that should never be used in a content dispute, and labeling good faith edits as "vandalism" isn't helpful. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Response from User:Semitransgenic

Hi Will, I'm sorry but I don't understand why said user saw it fit to reformat my contributions. If you can show me in the guidelines where it states that an editor is entitled to edit another's contributions, without consultation, and in the manner said user did, I will gladly revert. Please note also that the user was informed of my intention to deal with the items on a point for point basis, I also suggested that the user add their own section if they found the outline was not to their liking. User engaged in WP:DIS and consequently WP:VANDAL. You'll have to forgive me but I have no intention of wasting time appeasing someone who have already shown a great reluctance to address serious WP:SYN and WP:OR issues over a two year period, I'm also not going to waste time playing wiki-games running around the bush with this. If there are issues that cannot be resolved on the talk page they will be taken to the appropriate notice boards in due course. Thanks for your input. Best. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Reformatting comments isn't a shooting offense. Maybe I'm misreading the diff, but it looks to me like you were deleting his comments. Comments that are totally off-topic, or that are personal attacks, are often removed but these comments don't appear to be either. Everyone seems very upset about this topic. Have you guys tried mediation? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Looks the same to me. Anyways, rvv wasn't appropriate William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Semitransgenic, could you restore Milo's talk page comments and format things the way you want them? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hopefully that will lower the temperature. If this dispute has been going on for two years then mediation would not be premature. The WP:MEDCAB specializes in informal mediation, which may be all that's necessary. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's always a good idea to start with the sources. Noticeboards are good ways of getting broader input. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Milomedes

So long as he agrees to conform with WP content and behaviour policies - and to immediately cease his original research, article ownership, tendentious editing, personal attacks and all other inappropriate behaviours, I have no issue with the above editor. However, he has consistently refused to do so for almost 2 years, so the prospects for any meaningful change in his behaviour don't appear particularly bright. --Gene_poole (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. There has been one previous formal attempt at resolving the content-related issues at Space music, iniated by an uninvolved editor, Viriditas. In addition, I previously posted an RFC on the relevant noticeboard. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating

We can stretch back to our cave dwelling ancestors who arguably ustilised the acoustic properties of their living environment to great effect: possibly why much of the space music you refer to is drenched in reverb.

I'm curious, do you know of any cave archaeological sites that have discovered proto-musical instruments or any authors who discuss this topic? Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The voice, a very powerful music instrument, especially if used in a cave, Blesser discusses this in detail, for instance: "The reverberating sound of a cavern then becomes the voice of the cave spirit. Voice becomes the means by which a spirit, whether near or far, talks to us, gets into our heads. For our ancestors, voices included those of powerful spirits, the sounds from large acoustic structures and objects like caves and mountains, from thunder, and from wind itself. Aural architecture traces its origins to the voice of the space spirit. Believing the power of the voice measured the power of the spirit, early humans ignored the whispers of ordinary spaces and focused on large caves with commanding voices." He also discusses Waller's Psychoacoustic Influences of the Echoing Environments of Prehistoric Art. Check out Devereux he discusses the acoustic properties of various stone age structures, see a brief clip of him speaking [1]. A guy called Bob Fink found a Neanderthal flute a few years back, it was made from a cave bears femur! Semitransgenic (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the voice, of course. I will take a look at those sources, thank you. Do you have any opinion on the anecdotal, speculative nature of the entheogenic hypothesis and its contribution to language (and music), or would you just dismiss it as pseudoscientific nonsense? More to the point, are you aware of any reasonable ethnobotanical approaches to the origins of or influences on music? Viriditas (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You mean, do I think it's likely that some dudes dropped a bunch of shrooms and suddenly started getting their groove on for the first time? I have no idea! But I think if you look at some of the cultures who still use entheogens ritually it may give some indication as to the possible influence of their usage on creative practice and communication in general. In saying 'language' are you limiting the usage of the word to verbal communication only? No, I wouldn't dismiss any of it, but it's not something I've looked into in any detail, so no, I am not aware of any approaches that might be considered 'reasonable' : ) Semitransgenic (talk) 09:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a huge amount of experiential data on the subject. Benny Shanon talks about it in The Antipodes of the Mind: Charting the Phenomenology of the Ayahuasca Experience (2002):

...Ayahuasca often makes its partakers sing. More than that, the brew makes some people sing melodies they have never heard before, in other words, compose. Indeed, all the hymns of the Santo Daime Church are of this type: they are songs that prominent persons of the community have sung under the effect of the Daime. These songs are said to be 'received'...For related discussion in the anthropological literature see Gebhart-Sayer (1986), Bellier (1986), and Luna (1992).(105-106)

Just thought you might want to know. Take care. Viriditas (talk) 09:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that theory regarding Moses, mushroom hats and all that. Have come across the shaman song idea also, not so sure it's a complete explanation though, the imitation of sounds, and timings of sound events in the natural environment, could have played a role in shaping notions of musical structure, plus Gestalt grouping theories are relevant, as is the brains receptivity to the order exhibited by various physical systems in a given environment (and those we have little if any awareness of), and of course, the structure of the basilar membrane. I'm not sure drugs are really all that necessary, at least if you look at the range of other possible influences. Semitransgenic (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, just ran across this by chance on zoomusicology: "The icaros (sacred healing songs and chants) sung by ayahuasca healers, or shamanic practitioners, among Amazonian tribes are evocative of many of the sounds of birds, animals and insects of the jungle." This, in turn, led me to this clarifying statement on biomusicology: "Zoomusicology, as opposed to anthropomusicology, is most often biomusicological, and biomusicology is often zoomusicological." As for the flutes, I could only find Divje Babe flute. Apparently, the one Nicholas Conrad found doesn't have an article. I'm guessing more flutes have been found. Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

That's interesting, must look into it, regarding flutes, I don't know, I haven't followed that story up in some time, and I was wrong about who found the flute, I thought Bob Fink was the guy, wasn't aware of the Conrad flute. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I'll try and update the flute information as time permits. One thing: in the prehistoric music article it says, "Some suggest that the origin of music likely stems from naturally occurring sounds and rhythms. Human music may echo these phenomena using patterns, repetition and tonality. Even nowadays, some cultures have certain instances of their music intending to imitate natural sounds. In some instances, this feature is related to shamanistic beliefs or practice." Funny how that dovetails nicely with the use of ayahuasca. See also: Imitation of sounds in shamanism. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. But there is still the issue relating to perceptual alteration and the fact that in many situations where psychoactives are used what is perceived may often be inimitable using conventional means; the experiences arguably allow the user to transcend corporeality so notions relating to 'hearing' and 'imitating' may be redundant. Semitransgenic (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Spectromorphology

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Spectromorphology, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ears.dmu.ac.uk/spip.php?rubrique28. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Space music MedCab

Hi there! You have been named as a participant in an informal mediation regarding the article Space music, which I am mediating. I would like you to drop by the case page and indicate whether or not you agree to participate in the case. Please know that participation in the case doesn't mean you've done anything wrong! It's just a way to take everyone involved in a dispute away from whatever has caused the dispute and discuss the issues with a third party helping to keep the conversation on track. I look forward to working with you to address the problems and resolve them. //roux   10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Space music MedCab

Hi there! You have been named as a participant in an informal mediation regarding the article Space music, which I am mediating. I would like you to drop by the case page and indicate whether or not you agree to participate in the case. Please know that participation in the case doesn't mean you've done anything wrong! It's just a way to take everyone involved in a dispute away from whatever has caused the dispute and discuss the issues with a third party helping to keep the conversation on track. I look forward to working with you to address the problems and resolve them. //roux   10:07, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks

Thank you for your comments on CESNUR on the RS/N. I was wondering if anyone besides Jayen would respond. I was also curious if you'd happen to have a link to the CESNUR discussion in relation to Osho? Thanks. ←Spidern→ 12:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I first heard of that Ramtha hullabaloo on What the Bleep Do We Know!?, an otherwise thought-provoking documentary and a good introduction to quantum mechanics for newcomers.

Lately I've been cleaning up some Scientology articles which contain Scientologese and bad grammar, structure, etc. I've had to attempt to break them out of in-universe style writing. Check out the first paragraph of "The Spirit" in this edit. There is a lot of such content spread out across the Scientology wikiproject's pages. Recently there was a bit of an edit war on the main Scientology article after some reliably-sourced material was removed and the structure was being arbitrarily changed by parties potentially constituting conflicting interests. The page has been locked since. ←Spidern→ 15:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well thankfully, the response hasn't been terrible thus far. I think it was much worse a couple years ago. The main article underwent about 30+kb of reduction, and the consensus was holding for the most part. Right now its mostly down to finding all of the earlier stuff that was infused earlier on and never challenged. I'm up for that challenge. ←Spidern→ 15:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I hadn't realized that. Thanks for pointing that out. Although parts of it were questionable, the movie still had its merit in making certain concepts more accessible to the public. It's a shame that it had to be done by parties with conflicting interests though... I remember another thing that struck me as fairly non orthodox was Lynne McTaggart's interview. The problem was that they mixed some good science in with the bad, leaving the uninformed viewer at their mercy. ←Spidern→ 15:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

osho page.

hello semitransgenic. are you still involved in editing the osho page as I would like to help tidy it up . let me know (Off2riorob (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC))

hello to you too!semitransgenic.have you read the page on how to welcome newcomers!

yes the pov .. I am looking for someone to sort that out. soon as possible. I get the feeling you are in the position of objecting to any changes at all! Is the page frozen ? would you let me know what you don't like in the article and we'll work on removing it! sorry if I dived in with my ignorance, please just revert any changes you don't like. I know better now. are you still open to helping to improve this article?

best regards(Off2riorob (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

I am not a good searcher for quotes ..yet! about the move to america..which is hotly disputed. your view is that it was a premeditated fraud ..yes?

I have proposed to jayen this...

It could read like this.. although when he went to america his health was poor (he was never a 'well' person) the entry on health grounds was a simple deceit, the real purpose for going there was to build a utopian city in the desert.

could you go with this and could you quote sources to back it up.. I think you said there were multiple verifiable sources.. please comment. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

ok your objection is noted . although I can agree with you on laxmi there is a lot of evidence as to sheela's idividuality and her working towards her own goals irrispective of osho's wishes. so if you would write the version that you can source ill have a look at it with a view to get it accepted by the other editors. it would be helpful if you would write it the way you see it and then Ill offer it up to the other editors to find a balance. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

also please why am I getting thse boxes if I cut and copy and why isn't the text inside the box (Off2riorob (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

hi semitransgenic, I have been (started) reading through all your contributions (to get to know you better) and could you explain to me how you came to be here on jan 2 2008 fully trained? I would like to know if previous to that date you were involved in wiki under another name? and if so were you posting under another name on the Osho article? as this could have sock puppet issues . thankyou. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

ok. actually I am more interested in the way forward. although it is strange that the idea has come to me with no input from anyone else and there was already some comments along these lines.I will look a little more into it. (Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC))

anti Osho or pro truth?

what happened to you to make you so anti Osho? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Pro truth there's a difference.Semitransgenic (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)cut from off2rio's talk page) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Off2riorob (talk • contribs)

you seem to actually be agressive in your pro truth thing with osho. there are lots of other places here where you could wield your axe of truth. but you are fixated here??? I asked all of you to take your obsessions and walk away and allow others to enjoy improving the osho article but oh no ... all too involved.. have you ever in your life had anything to do with osho or sannyasins??? if not then please try and help me understand why your pro truth axe is only slashing at osho?

as I said b4 please can we keep the thread on one single page as it makes the thread difficult to read in one go. my talk page or yours I don't mind.

can you help me and tell me how to do that thing that leaves a message saying that you have a message or is it automatic..?

(Off2riorob (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Rob, I think I've explained all of this in the various archive discussions, and other asides in various locations, you'll find your answers there. Maybe I'm an obsessive compulsive, have an addictive personality, or am suffering from some autistic syndrome disorder, who knows? Really what it all boils to is that I see things differently to you, that's something you need to accept. Semitransgenic (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

yes I can accept that but...everyone is different and has different opinions but I have strongly held opinions about things from my life or things I like or things I hate.. not about things that I care less about.. and I am in the process of reading all the archives ... this first thing that you did here when you got here on jan2 2007 was to put the pov neutrality tag on the osho article so all those medical conditions you mentions are irrelevent smokescreens i'm asking you here now ? why are you so anti Osho? all your actions point towards involvment in some way! do you dissagree with me when I say that you are anti Osho? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Yep, first thing I did was put a POV tag, because I knew what was written there was not a neutral and unbiased perspective, knew that it did not represent the broad range of literature on the subject, and it was, I suspected, at the time, an article that was being controlled by OFI (just as you believed I was writing for some anti-osho group or whatever). This situation does not need to be justified nor do I need to justify any of my actions here. It is not the only article I edit, it is not my sole interest, it is not the focus of my life, you need to start seeing it in terms of WP:NPOV and not in terms of me being anti-osho, because that is simply not constructive. Semitransgenic (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

you walked in here and out of all the articles ,... millions.. you stuck a pov on osho and ever since you have been sticking your axe in..in an anti osho way. you have no intention of improving the article! do you? I can see you have also been posting on techno so you like techno or is it your medical condition and your sword of truth...? the truth is you like techno and you hate osho. .. you have come here with an anti osho agenda and I fail to see how anyone reading your posts would dissagree. I just would like some honesty from you ...your honest standpoint as you have googled jalal and jayen to be pro osho so you should say that you are anti Osho and then we could at least understand its ok.. just take a deep breath and say.... I am anti osho! if I had to describe your energy at the osho page it would be of someone as they say... sticking the knife in and wanting nothing more than to keep twisting it around.. this would be obvious to anyone reading your posts. you accuse jalal and jayen of being pro osho ..so go on admit it ..say it... you are anti osho. you will feel better after ...I promise you... regards (Off2riorob (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Really, this is like arguing with a creationist. I have nothing to admit. Your assessment is over simplistic, I deeply admire Osho on many levels, he was a remarkable individual, but he was not infallible, he's just one of many God men who had a go in the West, but this one happened to gain a particular level of notoriety for controversy, just as he had done in India before arriving in America. If a large ship passes in a small body of water, there's usually quite a significant wake, you chose to look at the ship, I chose to look at the wake.

Finally, if you find that my edits can be judged to be in contravention of Wikipeida editing guidelines and policy you have some sort of a case, otherwise get on with your own business and stop directing false charges at me. I am not answerable to you and I would like you to now cease with your line of inquiry or I will have you cited for harassment. Thanks you very much. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

anything but the truth eh? I have seen you do this a lot ..using your knowledge of the wiki to smokescreen your own biased actions. this is not harrasment it is a disscussion about your anti osho stance and your destructive editing of that page,. anyone who would read your posts since you appeared here fully trained on the 2 jan 2008 would have to agree. honesty is the best policy. which is not something your sword of truth is interested in. (Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Rob, this is not a discussion this is you throwing one accusation after another at me. There are many negative comments on that talk page from a multitude of editors, so what? Do you think that wikipedia is the place for followers of every guru under the sun to come and continue their worship? it's not, and you need to appreciate that others have opinions. I am asking you now not to continue posting on my talk page and I am requesting that you receive a warning for harassment. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)