Some idiot totally vandalized the Detroit techno article. It's going to have to be revamped. B-Machine (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The history of Techno on wiki is plain and simply biased. Techno's real roots are from Germany (and I am not German but born here in the U.S.A.telling everyone this). The term (which is an Undisputed fact!) was coined by the German grop Kraftwerk back in the mid 80s because of their use of modern technological instruments sed by them. The group that forever will be considered the "innovators" of Techno is non other than Talla 2XLC from Frankfurt, Germany. He also founded the first club ever devoted to only Techno music. There were quite a few groups that (by far) predated detroit so-called techno groups such as Tekkno Freaks, Bigod 20 and Robotiko Rejekto. Groups like these laid the real foundations for the music that we know today —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 02:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the main techno article (not the Detroit techno article) is extensively cited. If there is bias, it reflects the bias of the journalists, documentary filmmakers, and techno musicians who are on record in the cited references, and the fact that we haven't yet found any worthwhile sources beyond those. It's really hard to come by any sources that talk about knowledgably about techno in the UK & Europe other than bloggers and forum posters spewing nationalist, dubious folklore. We need journalistic and academic publications, biographies or documentaries, and quotes from people who matter. I actually have been sitting on an interesting German article about techno from the early '90s, published in an academic music journal, but I have yet to get it properly translated. It deals more with how the music was constructed at the time, not so much its history, though.
Anyway, Kraftwerk's influence is omnipresent in electronic music, but in relation to techno, their role is often overstated. Yes, they had an undeniable and cited influence on the electro side of techno, in the early Cybotron work. And there's the famous quote by Derrick May likening techno to Kraftwerk & George Clinton stuck in an elevator. The article already accounts for these points. It also already accounts for the fact that certain works by Kraftwerk are pointed to by those who like to search beyond the Detroit pantheon for examples of techno-like music and influences on that which became known as techno.
But your sweeping, vague statements about how "many" unnamed people consider Kraftwerk to have been "the first techno group" or whatever is just too much of a reach. It's just as bad as the person who said the Techno Twins, a quirky synth-pop group, were the first techno group because they used the word techno and worked with synthesizers and drum machines.
DJ Talla 2XLC has come up before, but his dubbing his early and mid-'80s record collection 'techno' does not constitute the invention of a genre, and his claims to that effect were roundly dismissed by his contemporaries in one of the documentaries mentioned in the article.
Re: Bigod 20 etc., if you can find credible, journalistic citations for EBM/industrial and New Beat groups' influence on techno and techno's influence on them, that'd be great, and we can probably work them into the article. —mjb (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of fighting back and forth on who did what, maybe you should check something out first. Yes the Techno cd that was released from Detroit in 1988 points out to the new style of music but a whole year prior ZYX records and Techno Drome international were releasing singles that promoted this new style of music. Robotiko Rejekto was one of the first groups to be labeled as a Techno group. Here is a link of the very first company to produce purely Techno releases. And it without doubt pre-dates the Detroit release http://www.discogs.com/label/Techno+Drome+International , why wold you deliberately want to keep this fact from the public's eyes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4august (talk • contribs) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
And Actually I did name a source that said that Talla 2xlc cloned the Term "Techno " first, the German "Frontpage" , you should look into that and even contact ZYX music to verify it.[reply]
could you email me when you get a chance? not having any luck this end, must be spam filters blocking? Semitransgenic (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At the Chicago house article, I think the current state of house music in its birthplace, Chicago, should be added. What do you think? B-Machine (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Some other questions that need to be answered: What became of the original Chicago house artists? Do they still make Chicago house? If they're based in Chicago, is everything they make considered Chicago house, or does it have to have a certain sound? Are people making Chicago house in other cities? What kinds of house music are popular in Chicago clubs now? What has been written about the popularity of house in Chicago? What has been written about the evolution of Chicago house in the 1990s – 'hard' house, 'booty' house, and the rise of Roy Davis Jr., Derrick Carter, Felix da Housecat, Cajmere, etc.? The problem will be finding sources for such info. Are there any books, mainstream news articles, or features in Chicago nightlife magazines that we can use? It's a lot easier to find things written about the 1980s than it is to find the later material, although I admit I haven't looked very hard. —mjb (talk) 03:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell, we have numerous reliable sources for techno's Detroit origins and the mid-1988 declaration of the Detroit artists' music as being techno. We have very little, aside from hyperbolic editorials, regarding how before that date, the techno was being used in an electronic dance music context by a certain DJ in Frankfurt.
I don't dispute the following: 1. that he was a DJ who for many years organized events he called Technoclub, at which he spun the fashionable electronic-oriented music of the day; 2. that during this era and earlier, he was using the word techno as an umbrella term for his selections of synth-pop, new wave, EBM, and other electronic dance music (this is in the We Call It Techno! documentary); 3. that in 1987 and early 1988, he was releasing EBM music on the new Techno Drome International imprint of ZYX; and 4. that the first releases on Techno Drome International, although still primarily EBM, incorporated elements of other dance styles, e.g. acid house and New Beat, so they naturally bear a slight resemblance to the post-New Beat techno tracks coming out of Belgium in the early '90s.
But accepting those things doesn't equate to "Techno Drome International was the first techno label" or "Talla 2XLC invented techno".
If you can find anything in print about his original music productions or the wide variety of music he called techno being widely or even locally accepted as being early examples of what is now the well-established techno genre, then I'm all ears. But I've looked and just can't find anything that we can use. That said, User:Semitransgenic and I recently chatted about it in private email, and we do both agree that there's more that needs to be said about non-Detroit-centric influences on techno, and there may be more we can use about Talla 2XLC in the We Call It Techno! film; I have to watch it again and see. —mjb (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So, why did somebody (I think it was 4august) put "Talla 2XLC invented techno" in the Talla 2XLC article? B-Machine (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding unsourced folklore to Wikipedia, and none of us who have higher standards have gotten around to pruning that article yet. Only the first statement in the article, about him being a DJ & producer and his work spanning industrial to trance, is attributed to a reasonably reliable source. The rest of the article lacks references or is attributed to websites of marginal value. That should be addressed, either by removing or tagging any content that's dubious or that ought to be backed up with references. All references to random DJ listing sites should be removed. Care to take that on? :) —mjb (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check out the article and see what I did is correct. B-Machine (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That removal was fine. Note the next paragraph talks about the 'first ever Techno label', but that's misleading. It was actually begun as an industrial/EBM label that used the word/prefix Techno in its name. Also be aware that you may have to make these edits again and again as people who don't care about WP:RS and WP:V will restore the deleted material. Policy is on your side, though.—mjb (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And of course, house music was born in Chicago. B-Machine (talk) 15:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved from User:Mjb to here. Please edit this discussion page, not my user page.)
I don't know where else to respond to your comments. Gee, but I thought Wikipedia presented itself as—guess what—a supposedly reputable, neutral, third-party source. And I was unaware that factual statements about magnetic circuits and Maxwell's equations were "opinions." What is it about you twentysomething (or is it teen?) Wikipedians and self-styled "autodidacts" (whoa, you impress me most deeply with your misuse of the term) that all you can do is flex your tiny little muscles against those who would express themselves while yet holding up as fact many, many things indefensible? No wonder the quality of your offering has degenerated so steeply of late! (B. D. Wilner, 6 June 2010)
I thought Wikipedia presented itself as—guess what—a supposedly reputable, neutral, third-party source. Well, Wikipedia is a summary of information in such external sources, and a pointer to them. It is not and cannot be the first place that information is published, ideas synthesized, and conclusions drawn, which is what you were trying to do in your edits to the John Bedini article. The verifiability policy is the law of the land here, as are related guidelines, such as those relating to notability of information and maintaining neutral point-of-view in part by only discussing what's relevant. The details of Bedini's theories aren't ever going to be covered in Wikipedia unless they get some traction in mainstream academic publications. Likewise, point-by-point criticisms and dismissals of his theories have no place here either. His notoriety demands a mention that he has these theories & patents, and we've made it clear that they're in the realm of fringe/pseudoscience. Until the day he or his critics get some real press rather than self-published screeds and writeups in pseudoscience rags, that's all the article needs to ever have in it. As for holding up as fact many, many things indefensible, I don't know what you're talking about. Perhaps you misread the article, because the only facts it presents are quite clearly cited. —mjb (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Comment moved from User:Mjb to here. Please edit this discussion page, not my user page.)
I apologize for putting these comments here, Mike. I know not where else to put them in a manner whereby they will be noticed.
The reason I don't cite "standard references" for Bedini are twain: (a) the material is of a sufficiently foolish nature that reputable journals decline to write about it; (b) straightforward engineering analyses that are within the capabilities of your everyday sophomore (well, junior, nowadays, I suppose) do not require standard references (which are lacking pursuant to [a] supra).
The details of Bedini's material being unworthy of taking up space in reputable journals, even if only for the purpose of pointing out their flaws, is exactly why those same details shouldn't be brought up on Wikipedia. It also would be providing a platform to advance his theories, no matter how much effort we put into tearing them down. That, and too much detail in this kind of article would invite unwelcome, incoherent rebuttals from Bedini and his supporters.
The mere existence of the material is a marginally notable point, itself, but it does occasionally attract some attention (e.g. a failed attempt to build a Bedini 'school girl' motor on the TV show Mythbusters), so we have to write something about it. But going into any kind of depth just isn't warranted, even if it could be cited. We've said the material exists, and we've sufficiently pointed out that it's in a subject area generally regarded as poppycock. I'd like to have some more references to point to, but just to back up those points already made, nothing more. —mjb (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article needs work. For example, I think "U.S. late 1980s - 1990s" should after "Detroit sound." "UK 1990s" should after "U.S. late 1980s - 1990s." What do you think? B-Machine (talk) 14:19, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably fine to go ahead and make those cosmetic changes. I won't have time to do any major edits anytime soon. I'm mainly just patrolling for spammy links for now. The article eventually needs to be completely rewritten, using cited sources. I look at it like right now it's in the phase where we're still figuring out what subtopics are important to touch on. —mjb (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The MultimediaWiki is not a reliable source?[edit]
Hello, you removed a reference to wiki.multimedia.cx on the Red Book (audio Compact Disc standard) article. You wrote: "the multimedia wiki is not a reliable source".
Please, could you explain, why is it not a reliable source? MultimediaWiki is not open for any contributions. Any contributor must be approved. Mike Melason is the chief maintainer of MultimediaWiki. He monitors contributions/changes on that wiki. As far as I know, he is also the primary contributor to MultimediaWiki.--188.167.27.153 (talk) 06:47, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A discussion has begun about whether the article Intelligent dance music, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SpecialCasesLOOK, A TALK PAGE!!!! 15:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self:
The AfD nomination above followed User:Special Cases's unsuccessful proposal to merge the Intelligent dance music article into the electronica article, despite zero consensus and arguments at Talk:Intelligent dance music#Merge against doing so. He didn't respond to any of that, and instead just resorted to the AfD nomination above. I commented on the nomination page, adding my voice to the chorus of others who pointed out that the nomination had no rationale, and pointing out that the AfD seemed to be nothing but Special Case's sour grapes over the failure to get support for a merge. The AfD nomination resulted in a speedy keep.
He then (on 27 October 2010) attempted to merge the articles anyway. Other curators undid the edits right away. I left a civil comment with constructive advice on User talk:Special Cases. He immediately removed it, saying in his edit summary "blanked discussion, don't accuse me of my reputation. If you've had enough, just take it to AN/I." I note that he also had recently added the Template:User wikipedia/Administrator maybe template to his user page to indicate he'd like to be nominated to be an administrator. (Good luck with that.)
On 30 October 2010, he continued with disruptive edits and also outed his account as one of several sockpuppets. He's now banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. —mjb (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you didn't guess it already, the above message was from Special Cases (talk·contribs) trying to evade his block. The PROD has been declined and the IP blocked by SpacemanSpiff. Favonian (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The year 2011 has brought many changes to the State of Colorado. We have a new Governor and other state officers, two new U.S. Representatives, many new state legislators, and a new Mayor of Denver. WikiProject Colorado is updating many Colorado articles. Many Colorado places, people, and organizations need new articles. Portal:Colorado needs new featured articles.
Woodinville here. Haven't been ignoring you on the MP3 thing, have been swamped. I know I've seen references in the literature, but that doesn't help, I've read so much of the literature... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodinville (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Where did the four-on-the-floor beat come from? B-Machine (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course the idea of a steady drumbeat is surely an ancient one, but as for calling it "four on the floor" and it being something associated with dance music, there's a half-written article for that: Four-on-the-floor (dance). I'm not sure why it was moved to dance from music though, as it seems to be about the drumming pattern. Anyway, take a look at the discussion page there; there's mention of Gene Krupa and the jazz era (e.g. swing music). Citations of reliable sources are desperately needed. It's all just speculation and "original research", which as you're probably aware is technically forbidden on Wikipedia.
Speaking of which, I assume you're asking because of its mention in the house music article. That article is a shambles! It wanders from topic to topic, sometimes revisiting the same topic and going into way too much detail. Much of it will have to be gutted and the whole thing reorganized and rewritten, with careful attention to only include that which can be attributed to published, library-accessible sources of credible authorship. I've cleaned up and added sources to a couple of its sections over the years, and I do my best to undo destructive edits by people with an axe to grind (like the people who want to eradicate any mention of gay culture, and the guy who wants to say house was invented in 1988), but it's still a big mess.
I try to be zen about it, looking at it like the article is still in its information-gathering, priority-sorting phase. Although it has a lot of unsourced, poorly written info and a lot of people coming in and adding their pet subtopics willy-nilly, there's an upside: anything particularly dubious or unimportant doesn't survive very long, which leaves us with just notable, plausible tidbits of info (unverifiable as it may be) and a handful of well-researched and properly cited facts. So more generally, the article can be interpreted not so much as an encyclopedic rough draft, but rather as just a list of topics that people want a more scholarly article to cover. When I look at it that way, I am more optimistic about its future. —mjb (talk) 07:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. Do you have a Youtube channel? There's a guy called "atlantichouse" who's making comments at a "Can You Feel It - Mr. Fingers" video saying Kraftwerk invented house music. Stupid, I know. Here's the link: http://www.youtube.com/comment_servlet?all_comments=1&v=tFuujExs03A. I'm tolldoll100. If you have a Youtube channel, chime in if you want. I think the piece of shit dumbass is a troll looking to cause trouble. B-Machine (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if he's really a troll. He's very much on the defensive and probably isn't the type to ever admit he's wrong. "Don't attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." I'll stay out of it for now. YouTube comment debates are very ephemeral. Unless you make a particularly witty comment everyone agrees with, everything you say just gets buried and forgotten, and isn't worth getting too upset about. Although I don't like knowing that someone who doesn't know what they're talking about is going to always get the last word.
Regarding the origins of house, it takes time for trends and clichés in music to develop, and styles/genres are identified retroactively, so it's rare that people universally agree on what the earliest examples of a genre are.
When you listen to music from 1986 and later, an era when everyone, musicians included, called certain kinds of music "house", it's pretty easy to say what is and isn't house music; the trends and hallmark sounds of the genre were pretty much established by then. But obviously the music didn't just come out of nowhere. There was music being made a couple years prior to that which exhibited some or many of the same characteristics. Some of it was released on wax and some of it was just disco edits and original tracks being made and played in clubs from reel-to-reel tape and put onto cassette mixtapes. And before that, the same people were spinning straight-up disco.
How much of that earlier music was house? It can't all be house, can it? Is a disco track house just because it works well in a house set? What if only a small part of the song is housey? Does it have to be made by someone in the Chicago scene? Does it have to have been something the Chicago DJs played in the mid-'80s?
To get an idea of what I mean, go listen to the Frankie Knuckles sets from the 1985 Belmont Ave. Beach Gay Pride event (scroll down the page a bit to find them) and hear how he took the "housey" parts of disco, Italo-disco, and boogie songs and played them along with homegrown electronic productions in the same style. IMHO, DJ sets like that are where house came from; he and other DJs liked a particular kind of sound, sought it out and mixed examples of it back-to-back. When the opportunity arose to make tracks themselves, these DJs and their friends made music in very much the same style, a particular kind of groove that worked well on Chicago dancefloors and dance radio.
Anyway, there are always people who get way into a particular genre, then discover some older piece of music that predates the genre by several years but that bears some (or great) resemblance and doesn't sound like it belongs in any other genre. Then they run around declaring that the piece of music is the "original" example of the genre and its performer is the genre's "inventor," and that everyone is wrong when they say the genre came much later. I used to do this kind of thing, myself, until I did some more listening and found that these kinds of tracks really do tend to have much more in common with the music of their era than with the genres that were identified later.
An example I like to use to emphasize this point is James Brown's "Funky Drummer". Was that the first hip-hop record? Of course not. There are a bunch of bloggers who say Charanjit Singh invented acid house in 1982 because he made a TB-303-based disco album. I understand where they're coming from, but I completely disagree. Is it worth going in and commenting on their blogs (or YouTube channels or whatever) to tell them they are mistaken? I would rather focus on Wikipedia and just get the genre articles beefed up with enough well-written, well-cited content that it crushes most people's attempts to inject these fringe views.
Take a look at what we did with the techno article. The main text presents the widely accepted, well-sourced point of view about the genre's origins (Detroit musicians and the 1988 Techno! The New Dance Sound of Detroit compilation). It treads lightly when talking about "techno" prior to that compilation. Fringe points of view come later and are downplayed: one being that a Frankfurt-based DJ was using the term techno (true) in regard to electronic dance music (true, but very broadly) long before the Detroit musicians (maybe) and thus invented the genre (dubious); and the others being claims that Kraftwerk, Giorgio Moroder, "Share Vari", and so on were techno. There's a carefully worded proto-techno section where those "antecedents" are acknowledged. Ultimately I think we'll have to do this kind of thing in the house articles. —mjb (talk) 01:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer. B-Machine (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I see you do a lot of editing to roller derby-related articles, and am wondering if there is any interest in creating/joining a WikiProject meant to better handle and improve roller derby articles. From looking through the archives, one has yet to be proposed, but think if enough folks were up for it, it could help make the quality of articles more consistent and useful. Echoedmyron (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I boldly rewrote the "business structure" section you edited last year. (Or was it two years ago?) My goal was, primarily, to make it comprehensible and to describe all of the main streams of cash flow through the music industry. To do this, I had to gloss over a lot of details and exceptions (with liberal uses of the words "usually", "typically" and "traditionally"). I wonder if you mind looking at it and see if there are any egregious blunders. Thanks. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What you've done is definitely an improvement. Still needs work but doesn't have anything wrong in it, AFAICT. I won't have time to help much with it, but here are a couple of things I noticed:
This phrasing is not ideal: [Compositions] are originally owned by the composer, who may sell the composition in the form of a copyright. It's not incorrect, but it makes it sound like a copyright is a type or means of communicating the actual composition, whereas the idea is just to say that they own the copyright and use that right to license the work for financial gain. Also you should be sure to refer to songwriter "and/or" composer wherever possible; it's common in pop music for both entities to exist and share in the business aspects.
Further, I'm not sure the best way to phrase things, but I think you should try not to say anything that conflicts with the following, which is just my own impression of the situation: If a song or composition is a "work for hire", the songwriter and/or composer don't own the copyright; whoever hired them does. Even when the creator does own the copyright, they typically claim it via, or assign it to, a publishing company, for their own legal and financial protection. This company may represent just the songwriter and/or composer, or a group of frequent collaborators, or it may represent a large number of unrelated songwriters and composers. Sometimes the rights are shared by multiple companies, either through licensing or joint ownership, in order to share in royalties, reach different markets, or to better facilitate publishing and copyright management in different geographic areas.
The recording engineer is responsible for the audio quality of the recording. ...is likewise true, but doesn't really say what the engineer does, and often it's the mix engineer who has the more important role. The recording engineer is only responsible for recording each performer's part, but may also act as a mix engineer. Most studio recordings and even many live recordings are multitrack. A mix engineer combines the recorded parts (e.g., each separate instrument and vocal) into a complete "master" recording (e.g., a stereo or surround version). This recording is the basis of copies further processed by a mastering engineer to meet the requirements of a particular medium (like an audio CD). The audio engineering article summarizes the types of engineers. —mjb (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.
For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mjb wrote: "You had inserted, without citing a reliable source, a claim that the widths of Monotype Grotesque were changed during the creation of Arial/Sonoran Sans in order to make Arial more like Helvetica. As I'm sure you're aware, there's quite a bit of hysteria among type enthusiasts about Arial's relationship to Helvetica. This naturally affected the Arial article until we started holding statements on that subject to a higher standard of verifiability."
Yes, I saw your partial reversion. I certainly respect the reason behind it. Luckily, I finally found a good source: http://www.xnet.se/xpo/typetalk/, recording a 1996 discussion on the Typo-L mailking list. I have re-inserted something in the article, but with the citation. Note particularly the comments from Andrew Boag and David Lemon (the latter being my former manager of many years).
Even without all that, I hold the point about the widths as self-evidently true, as well as being common knowledge in the type industry. I don't believe this particular fact is controversial at all. I don't personally have anything in for Arial, and in fact I don't much care for the whole category of neo-grotesque fonts exemplified by Arial, Helvetica and Univers.
The other ways we know that Arial's widths are based on Helvetica's:
1) Monotype Grotesque has demonstrably quite different widths than Arial and Helvetica.
2) Helvetica predates Arial by 35 years.
3) The widths of all the basic (WinANSI encoding) glyphs in the four Arial fonts are identical to what one gets if one scales the Linotype / Adobe PostScript Type 1 version of Helvetica by 2.048 (to compensate for the difference in em square).
4) PostScript printer drivers for Windows have long allowed the substitution of the built-in printer fonts (Helvetica etcetera) for the standard Windows fonts (Arial etcetera). This is only feasible if the widths match quite precisely, else such substitution would be problematic. Of course, with Arial becoming available in ROM in PostScript 3 it became unnecessary....
5) Why does that substitution work? Because part of the design brief of the core Windows fonts in question was that the widths had to match the core Adobe PostScript fonts. The designs however did not have to match very exactly, which means that some of them are very close indeed (Book Antiqua vs Palatino) and others were less so (Monotype Corsiva vs Zapf Chancery). Personally, I put Arial in the middle, but more towards the latter category. It is pretty easily distinguished from Helvetica, other than the widths being identical.
6) When ITC sued Monotype over some members of that same set of fonts (the ones that were similar to ITC's, as opposed to ones similar to Linotype's), the widths cloning was part of the discussion, and not contested as fact. The question became whether the shapes, apart from the widths, were too similar. Note that this was a breach of contract suit, not based on copyright. ITC lost that battle, rather narrowly I suspect. (Had it been Linotype doing the lawsuit with the same contract in place, I think they would have had a much better shot at it.) Of course, the great irony is that Monotype later bought out both ITC and Linotype, so all this is now about different divisions of the same company....
Thanks for this. The thread does support a claim that Sonoran Sans Serif was a substitute for Helvetica in the IBM 3800, and it somewhat supports, via a qualified statement from Andrew Boag, a claim that this substitution was made by IBM and Monotype in order to avoid licensing Helvetica. However, nothing in it supports the assertion "Subtle changes and variations were made to both the letterforms and the spacing between characters [of Monotype Grotesque, in order to create Arial/Sonoran Sans Serif] [...] to allow it to directly substitute for Helvetica [in the IBM 3800]."
I've edited the article accordingly, and beefed up the ref a bit. See what you think. —mjb (talk) 02:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "nothing in it supports the assertion...." Specifically, there's this bit: "As DH points out, Monotype's analogues did have clear associations with designs that predated the ITC ones. Of course, they were also clearly modified to reflect the ITC ones - matching not only metrics but also weights, heights, and design features (many, but not all, of the latter)." Now, note that "metrics" is font-speak for widths, and sometimes heights. Yes, this references ITC because the immediate topic was the ITC lawsuit, but the same changes were made to all of the families in question.... Sigh. I could of course email any number of people involved and get a direct confirmation, but that would be "original research" just to confirm something that literally everyone in this industry knows, and is not controversial. Not to mention the simple points of logic and temporal sequence I outlined above. Moreover, the article already said in another place that Arial is "identical in width" to Helvetica; Monotype Grotesque is quite self-evidently not, so clearly some time between it being Monotype Grotesque and becoming Arial, its widths were made identical to Helvetica. I'm putting that back in. Thomas Phinney (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I ignored the quote about the ITC lawsuit for the reason you guessed: it wasn't about Arial and Helvetica.
You do seem to understand the problem, at least. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence to arouse suspicion:
It's obvious, and documented, that the Monotype fonts at issue in the ITC case clearly resemble Monotype originals, but differ in ways that make them similar/identical to the ITC fonts in more than a few aspects.
It's obvious, and documented, that the Arial likewise resembles its claimed ancestor, Monotype Grotesque, yet differs in many ways that make it quite similar/identical to Helvetica.
It's well-known, and documented in the 1996 email exchange, if nowhere else, that Monotype had a reputation for sometimes producing knock-offs.
It's documented in "Is Arial Dead Yet?" (one of the better sources) that Arial was designed to compete with Helvetica.
It's obvious, and documented, that people have trouble telling the difference between Arial and Helvetica.
It's documented that in 1982 Monotype contracted with IBM to provide a sub-licensed Helvetica for one printer, and Arial for the other.
It's documented that in 1992, Microsoft called Arial "an alternative to Helvetica".
But even if everybody in the industry "knows" it, we can't point to those facts and their sources as proof that any of Monotype's products were deliberately designed to mimic and replace those of ITC and Linotype. And that's what you're doing when you say, for example, that the widths were changed in order to match Helvetica's. If we merely say the widths were changed in a way that make them match Helvetica's, no problem. We're not saying it's a coincidence, but we're not saying it's deliberate, either.
We can probably still be accused of bias (e.g. maybe the widths match those of many other typefaces, why single out Helvetica, maybe they just liked how it looked, maybe it really is a coincidence underserving of any attention at all) ... but I'm comfortable drawing the line here. —mjb (talk) 11:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely right, looks like I jumped the gun slightly on that. Thanks for bringing to my attention. Zarcadia (talk) 15:55, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
hi Mjb, what are your views on dealing with the 91/92 303 revival, or Acid Techno things, in the article? should it be in the section on Germany, or independent of it? or in an Acid Techno sub-section? (this kinda ties into Free Techno also) it crosses over three domains: +8 (US), Hardfloor etc. (Ger), True Love Collective (UK). It's central to changes in the German sound, and it kind of took off there, but seems +8 kick started the 303 revival originally. --Semitransgenic (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I think we ought to cover as much as we can, but so little has been written about it in the sources we've seen so far. I suspect there are a number of academic papers which cover it in more depth. I can only tell you what my own impressions are.
One is that the Germans did embrace acid house and harder techno sounds, but didn't really combine the two in homegrown productions until 1992.
Another is that +8's acid techno sound really seems to have started in '91 and owes heavily to Joey Beltram's "Energy Flash" (1990), a song which cemented a "hard", sinister, monotonous aesthetic that permeated techno for years, and which also heralded R&S Records' contributions to come.
Most importantly, "acid techno" covers more than just techno with 303s, and there were acid-house-style 303-like sounds being used in techno before the explosion of actual 303 use in '91-'92. Before '91, many producers didn't have or chose not to use a 303, and instead made similar "melodic, not-very-bassy bassline" sounds with other synths. When I listen from this perspective, I find that from about 1987 to 1990, acid house and techno aesthetics were already being blended by many artists, especially those near Chicago's original acid house scene, and the UK's '88-'89 rave scene.
For example, in the US, all three of the big Detroit techno producers (Derrick May especially) were using these acid-like basslines (SH-101 based, I think). The way they used them was more staccato than the typical 303 sounds but they're still in the same not-very-bassy registers as 303s. Maybe I'm mistaken for drawing a parallel between this style of bassline and the 303 sound, but I feel their similarity is not an accident. Example: YouTube video bGmfr5aaGTA
In the UK there was 808 State (Newbuild, Quadrastate, 90) and solo A Guy Called Gerald ("Voodoo Ray", "FX", "Rhythm of Life"); plus a handful of direct imitators of Detroit sounds, like Baby Ford ("Fordtrax"), Bizarre Inc. (Technological LP), Nexus 21 ("Real Life", "(Still) Life Keeps Moving (Instru'MENTAL' Dub Mix)"—which actually does have a 303; c.f. YouTube video pntXLiZehlw).
In the US, as I mentioned, there was "Energy Flash", with its monotonous, 303-like "wahl wahl wa-wa-wahl" bassline.
In the Netherlands, Quazar "The Seven Stars" and its B-side "Moon Turns The Tide" were very popular in 1990 and I think they're pretty obviously acid techno. The latter is basically a "deep" remix of the former and uses a far more 303-like bassline.
Once you hit '91, there's definitely the 303 revival, often combined with the "Energy Flash" vibe. My 1991 acid techno folder contains:
From the UK, Reload "Sexomatic", Aqua Regia "Directory Enquiries"
From the N. America, Underground Resistance "The Final Frontier"; Circuit Breaker "Open Your Mind", F.U.S.E. "F.U." and "Substance Abuse"; Texas Audio "Assassin"; Joey Beltram "Sub-Bass Experience" and "The Reflex"; Disorder [also Beltram] "Groove Attack"; E-Dancer "Grab The Beat (Joey Beltram Remix)"
From the Netherlands, Human Resource "Dominator (Frank De Wulf Mix 1)" and Quazar's re-recorded LP version of "Moon Turns the Tides" (now with an "s" on "Tides").
And those are just the acid techno tracks I like from 1991; many more examples surely exist from the same year.
Not sure if this helps! —mjb (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
well I suppose what I meant was 303 use in the style of Chicago Acid House, 303 tracks that were essentially referencing stuff like that produced by Phuture, Armando etc. I recall, at the time, having been listening to a lot of Detroit style stuff, that F.U.S.E etc. just sounded like a return to an acid house aesthetic, but it was a logical progression of that sound. Reynolds touches on this so called revival, but I'll have to go back and see exactly what he says. --Semitransgenic (talk) 10:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what page in Energy Flash, but in Generation Ecstasy p. 202: in the context of trance's emergence (something I hope to sort out soon) he calls it a "harking back to the purity of the pre-rave era, trance revived the Acid House sound of the late 80s," this is 91/92 we are taking about. Granted there were examples of acid house inspired tracks prior to that, particulary in the UK, 88/89, but rave and techno blurred the picture for a while between 89/91, the pure acid sound got left on the back burner, was revived by Hawtin et al and eventually done to death by Stay Up Forever and co. (and now it seems every 20 something dance wannabe on Youtube is posting vids of their 303 noodlings!) --Semitransgenic (talk) 12:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of what you want to say in the article. I'm just afraid that without sufficient qualifying statements, the reader will be led to infer that acid aesthetics fully disappeared and then suddenly came back (which actually was my impression at the time), but in hindsight, with more exposure to music from the era, I've found it really never left, it just went through a progression, IMHO partly due to a scarcity of secondhand 303s, and part of this progression was the revival of the pure Chicago-like 303 sound in a new, harder, techno context.
Possibly useful result from a Google Books search for "acid house revival": {{citation|title=All Music Guide to Electronica|last=Cooper|first=Sean|editor-last=Bogdanov|editor-first=Vladimir|year=2001|publisher=Backbeat Books|page=304|quote=A native of Cologne, Germany, [Mike] Ink, together with artists such as Biochip C., J. Burger, and Air Liquide, was a founding member of the Structure label group, which included the Blue, Monotone, and DJ Ungle [''sic''] Fever labels, largely responsible for the early '90s German acid house revival.}} —mjb (talk) 18:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i think you are right, in the context of the article on techno, singling out the idea of a 303 revival is a bad idea, but in a broader context it might make sense, considering what was happening in that era with dance music generally, i mean 2 unlimited were called techno, and were topping the UK charts with ravey nonsense. But go back to 88 and Jolly Roger & D-Mob were in the charts, acid was no longer an underground sound at that time, and I think a lot of so called purists steered away from overt use of the 303 because of the commercial attention, then the bleep thing emerged in the UK, and LFO were in the charts, then rave/hardcore, with Prodigy at the commercial end of that scene, then jungle blew up on the back of breakbeat hardcore, it took a while for the full on acid techno thing to build momentum, on the face of it, from a UK perspective, it might appear to be a "revival" but the German scene had kept it alive, just took a while for it to re-emerge in the UK as a sound because of all the other stuff that was happening. --Semitransgenic (talk) 11:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody with half a brain knows house music originated in Chicago and techno in Detroit. There's lots of articles and documentaries proving that. So why is it some want to refuse to believe it, even going as far as overstating or overplaying the influence of certain acts? What's your opinion? B-Machine (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
People generally base their theories about genre connections and ethnomusicology on their own vague impressions, using whatever little bits of information (including erroneous hearsay) and actual music they've been exposed to. Sometimes they get it right, sometimes they don't. Almost always, their perceptions are incomplete. We're all guilty of this to some degree or other.
For example, people who have listened to a lot of acid house & acid techno but who haven't been exposed to very much disco and Bollywood are very likely to hear Charanjit Singh's Ten Ragas to a Disco Beat and think that it's truly acid house music from 1982. Those of us who have had more exposure to that album's actual context hear it much differently; it only resembles acid house in the most superficial way, and clearly is not acid house at all, and that's not even getting into the fact that that record couldn't have influenced anybody because no one knew about it until a couple years ago. The same kind of thing applies to Kraftwerk/Moroder/YMO/disco/synthpop etc., although in those cases there are major labels, wide exposure/popularity, and radio & club airplay involved, so it's not so simple to say that those things weren't part of the mix of influences and cultural origins; "house music originated in Chicago and techno in Detroit" is in some ways an oversimplification, but that is the prevailing point of view among people who generally know what they're talking about when it comes to music, so that's what we go with. We need to continue to be sure to cite as many really good sources as we can, and just be understanding (i.e., assume they're working from limited input and have reached conclusions on their won) but firm in the way we deal with misinformed newcomers who are upset about the bias they think is in the articles. I hate to throw the rulebook at people, but telling them to come back with some reliable sources usually shuts them up, because they soon find there aren't any good sources that support their point of view. —mjb (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I ask because atlantichouse at Youtube is still at it. He or she admitted to being wrong about Chicago and apologized, but he or she is on a tirade against Detroit. B-Machine (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Roller derby isn't necessarily only for the 20- or 30-somethings (or for matter for teenagers). The fact that women in early middle-age are also playing this sport is definitely a salient fact of demographic athletic interest, IMHO. I know of three such women in the Treasure Valley Rollergirls, and Boise isn't that big of a town. kencf0618 (talk) 04:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not even an issue. Why would anyone assume it's only for "the young" any more than any other sport? Do they say things like that in other sports articles? Even if it's something you think is important for people to know about roller derby, it's really nothing that needs more than the briefest of mentions, where male/female/junior demographics are mentioned, not multiple sentences devoted to it and phrased as if there were this big myth that needed to be dispelled. Also, all the women I've known who play/played in their 40s would resent the implication that they weren't "young". —mjb (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
History section in main Roller Derby article[edit]
Hi MJB:
I was looking over an earlier version of the article, before I got involved:
here
The earlier version seems to me to have a nicer point of view. Current version gets into the weeds pretty fast. Your thoughts?
You appear to be key editor to the History of Roller Derby article. It was an enjoyable surprise to read it...Good Work! --Nemonoman (talk) 11:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to point me out on this as no, I don't know much about house music! Just for the record I went back to have a look at what I did and I now remember that the way the content was added may have made me think it was vandalism. As you can see, the part about gay men was just slapped on the end of a sentence with another 'and' instead of inserting a previous comma and was not ref'ed. Because of this, I made the mistake of reverting it. I hope you can understand, Thanks, --SteveTurner cont. 11:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 17[edit]
Hi. When you recently edited New Music Seminar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page In the City (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have a regular wikipedia account which is rather anonymous, which I've avoided using to edit articles that involve me. I created this account so that all possible conflicts of interest can be more obvious. I will rely on my fellow wikipedians to challenge me if my edits become overzealous or inappropriate.--Joeltenenbaum (talk) 21:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your edits there. You might also look at the Nakamichi article for similar excessive peacockiness. I got rid of some of it but it can always use another look. Jeh (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks I didn't see it. It's not really telling us anything new? is it? Semitransgenictalk. 22:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the EDM article on Wikipedia is kind of a mess, but it can't seem to decide if EDM is just club-style electronic music, or if it encompasses every kind of electronic music one could dance to. It also says electronica is the same as EDM. The techno article says that techno is a kind of EDM. The NPR piece provides some clarity on this, particularly in that it really hammers the point that EDM is distinct from electronica, techno, and deep house. Here are some things that we should use:
EDM as a term "has been adopted by a primarily American audience" who apply it to relatively commercialized "big tent electro-house, American dubstep," etc.
"EDM is a pop-driven, mostly high-energy, commercial strain of dance music."
Big names in EDM currently are the highest-paid DJs in the world: David Guetta, Calvin Harris, Swedish House Mafia, Tiesto, Deadmau5 and Skrillex.
Techno is not EDM (this contradicts the lead sentence of the techno article). Deep house is not EDM.
Techno and deep house sets tend to be slow-building and "tracky" with a "groove", whereas EDM relies on dramatic build-ups, "drops", and breaks.
EDM songs increasingly "hover in the three to five minute range and are heavy on swooning vocals and catchy melodies."
Electronica was major labels marketing albums; EDM is indie labels offering free streams and downloads and using social media to attract sponsors and drive attendance at live events.
Electronica had some radio hits, but that exposure brought as much scorn as popularity, and the underground rave scene wasn't strong enough to support the scene and keep it going; in contrast, the strong live following, even for relatively unknown artists, is keeping EDM alive, to the point where it has "risen to '90s-level heights and beyond".
The massive popularity and ease of production of EDM music, its increasing homogeneity, and performers' reluctance to change up their sets, is contributing to disillusionment and speculation of impending doom from within the scene (Deadmau5, WSJ and various critical headlines are cited).
The popularity of EDM is spurring non-EDM artists to try to foster appreciation of non-EDM: Carl Cox and Richie Hawtin are curating events dedicated to non-EDM, but, to draw people in, the events are attached to EDM (Hawtin's tour in name, Cox's alternative tent at the Ultra festival).
that's great! Good analysis. However, there is a problem. One thing that seems to have been lost by NPR is that the term EDM appears to have originated in academic writing. In music academia "electronic music" has always meant music in the tradition of the European avant garde, and "dance music" of course existed prior to electronics. Academic writing about popular electronic music, that was focusing specifically on "electronic dance music," introduced the acronym EDM. This was eventually picked up by those in the non-academic domain. NPR, and every other source presenting EDM as a specific genre/style whatever, have missed this completely. It is perfectly acceptable, in the context of a musicological perspective, to call house,techno etc. electronic dance music. So, I'm not sure that we can simply scrap the term EDM because it has been associated, by the music industry, with a form of popular electronic dance music. What I would like to see is an introduction of the acronym UDM which has been used by some academics to denote "underground electronic music," this is the only real way to make a clear distinction, now that EDM appears to mean something else in the popular press. But, this begs the question: is there really still an underground? The latency between a "new sound" breaking and it getting hyped is so small now that underground scenes are over before they even begin. In EDM, or whatever you want to call it, whether its Skrillex or Blawan, exposure happens quickly, it's a huge industry, people get to know what's what very quickly these days.I personally view "electronic dance music" as any form of electronic music that is produced for the purposes of dancing, it would appear to be a logical definition. What are the options? Semitransgenictalk. 14:41, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; after considering what you wrote, I agree, we shouldn't erase the history of EDM as an academic, general term. The NPR piece even says the definition has been nebulous up until recently. The current, popular (non-academic) concept of EDM is based on the NPR interviewer talking to numerous people, including fans, artists/DJs, and expert observers (e.g. Pete Tong), so I'm confident it's accurate—unusually so, for genre reporting. I think as long as we explain this popular–academic schism in the EDM article, it's fine. As for the techno article, how about we leave it as-is, but add a footnote? —mjb (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
i think fan discourse is certainly important but I also believe such matters need to be addressed properly, ideally via a reliable secondary source. It's unfortunate that academic writers are always playing catch up to changes in popular music discourse, I would like to see this change, and it probably will eventually. I have no objection to losing the acronym form the techno page, maybe use the full expression but leave the footnote? Semitransgenictalk. 00:42, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey sorry about that thing about house music. It looked like vandalism but thanks for the heads up! ♠♥♣Shaun9876♠♥♣Talk 22:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 20[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tecumseh Local School District, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Mjb. I noticed your edits to the CCI article over the past few days, and I have to say: wow, that's a lot better. The reason I'm watching it, actually, is because I've been asked by the CCI to review the article (on a paid basis) and prepare an updated, more comprehensive draft. In such cases, I do not edit articles directly, but I try to research and write a quality article—including the "good" and the "bad" (as your last edit summary indicates, the criticism does need to be summarized)—and I'll look for uninvolved volunteer editors to offer feedback and move the draft, if there's consensus to do so. I don't know if you had plans to continue writing the article, but I was nearly finished with a draft when I saw your edits (all of which I agree with, FWIW). Let me know if you're interested in looking at it, and if so I can share it with you (and of course on the CCI Talk page) soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mjb. You have new messages at WWB Too's talk page. Message added 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hello, Mjb. You have new messages at Talk:Compact Disc Digital Audio. Message added 00:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Electronic dance music, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages New Wave and Dub (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Extended Copy Protection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chilling effect (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, Mjb. We talked a while back about a rewrite of the CCI Wikipedia article. As it happens, I got too busy, and a colleague of mine took it over. He is User:ChrisPond, and he's just posted his notice about a new draft on the article's Talk page. He's had one reply from someone who's questioned whether CCI and CAS should be separate articles, which is interesting because you and I had discussed their relationship as well. I'm actually going to step back from this entirely, since I don't want there to be any misconception of meat puppetry on this topic. However, since we'd discussed it before, I figured it best to say hi and let you know what's the latest! Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Music genre: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Both registered users and IPs (including 131.228.29.67 that vandalized the article) need your corrections so they understand editing tests are not allowed in articles.Chris Troutman (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey mjb, just wanted to let you know that I've finally had a chance to update my userspace draft of the CCI article, and have posted a point-by-point of what I've changed over at Talk:CCI. If you have time, could you take a look and let me know what you think? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey again mjb, just wanted to let you know that another editor was able to take a look at this, so it's now Done. Thanks for your initial feedback; it definitely helped improve the draft! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joint (audio engineering), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Xing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of automated file description generation[edit]
Your upload of File:Arialunicodebug.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.
This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for you recent work on Copyright infringement but you appeared to have worked off your own knowledge... where are sources for all this? Jytdog (talk) 10:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Mjb. You have new messages at Talk:New Carlisle, Ohio. Message added 14:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed[edit]
Hello Mjb! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot IItalk 19:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Music genre: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Both registered users and IPs (including 131.228.29.67 that vandalized the article) need your corrections so they understand editing tests are not allowed in articles. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for your initial feedback; it definitely helped improve the draft! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
