User talk:Jhsounds/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Cylon

Why did you remove the link to the disambiguation page for Cylon? I read WP:NAMB and the link to the disambiguation page Cylon looks like the right thing to do. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to look into it and restore it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Ref

OK thanks, I thought so but wasn't sure, because I was seeing it being placed before punctuation by other users. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

French house

I'm a bit curious why you created "Lifelike" as a redirect to Realism, when I've clearly stated that I'm about to create an article on the French house producer. Are you Just64messin or what? Sebisthlm (talk) 01:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Free tekno

I never spotted that. I have proposed a merger. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The Originator

Again we have a similar problem as we had with the sound. Atkins has been referred to as The Originator, with May being called The Innovator, there is some title for Saunderson in a similar vein, by I can't recall what it is. I can find references for it's use as a title for Atkins if that is useful, shortening it to originator simply undermines the usefulness of the heading Semitransgenic (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the hour-long documentary is based on interviews with the “Belleville Three” or “Holy Trinity” of Detroit techno: Juan Atkins (“The Originator”), Kevin Saunderson (“The Elevator”), and Derrick May (“The Innovator”). - Dr. Rebekah Farrugia reviewing High Tech Soul: The Creation of Techno Music (Directed by Gary Bredow. Plexifilm DVD PLX-029, 2006). Published in Journal of the Society for American Music (2008) Volume 2, Number 2, pp. 291–293. Semitransgenic (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

For repairing the links on my user page. Much appreciated! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbclark1976 (talk • contribs) 13:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Header

I disagree, get arbitration before reverting again, your say is not final on every single matter you find objectionable, contrary to what you may believe. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

MOS is not hard and fast on such matters from my reading of it. It's pretty clear from the sub-section that Techno alliance is suggestive of A Techno Alliance, which is derived from Tresor II: Berlin-Detroit, A Techno Alliance (a notable record). The full title is inappropriate as a header, as is Berlin-Detroit: A Techno Alliance, as is A Techno Alliance, as is Berlin-Detroit but Techno alliance would seem to do the job nicely, perhaps Techno Alliance would be more suitable? Semitransgenic (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

yes, I take your point, but the preceding section clearly establishes that a number of Detroit producers had migrated to Berlin.This point could be reiterated but I'm assuming people are capable of following the content and of making the readily apparent connections. Tresor is well known as for it's involvement with Detroit.If you wish the section can be strengthened with additional references to the Detroit producers in Berlin at the time etc. but it will have to wait a couple of days Semitransgenic (talk) 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for copyright info on 3 images

I'm puzzled by the source and licensing info that you added for Image:Yankee T-81 023.jpg, Image:Yankee T-81 021.jpg, and Image:Yankee T-81 027.jpg, all of which were uploaded by User:Stadium08. You identified "I, Stadium08" as the sole author of these images and you asserted that the images are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. How can you certify the authorship of someone else's images? Are you Stadium08? Can you shed some light on why the camera data for images lists Date and time of data generation as 11:43, 31 January 2006; 11:47, 31 January 2006; and 11:54, 31 January 2006; but your descriptions say the photos were made on April 1, 2008? --Orlady (talk) 03:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. It was very helpful of you to add the source and licensing info, but those source and licensing statements are supposed to have legal significance. If you were not the uploader of these images, how can you certify that the uploader created those images, and how can you grant the uploader's permission for their use? --Orlady (talk) 03:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Wii

Hi, I would like to ask you a question about Wii. Can you use it as a DVD Player? Thanks in advance for the answer. diego_pmc (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bkgearslogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bkgearslogo.png. 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) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One More Time

Yeah, give me some proof first. If you fail to do so, it shall be removed once again. Don't go around making people look bad by claiming they said something they did not. --James599 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. This is all very funny to me. You don't completely understand: I never said that One More Time DOESN'T use a sample, I said that it says NOWHERE that Thomas DENIED using a sample for it SPECIFICALLY. Some stupid fan based site does not speak for Thomas, anyway.

But I'm not interested in having an argument. You can leave it as it is. See if I care... --James599 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Daft Punk

Apologies for the lack of citation. I'm adding the source right now... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Champiness (talk • contribs) 16:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Banjo-Kazooie 3

I found the date at Ign.com it even says it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathon43 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

IGN says so! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dsboy (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --Anfish (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spiral Mountain.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spiral Mountain.png. 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) 05:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wii Remote Pricing

Hello there. I wasn't able to find the discussion on pricing you mentioned, or any reference in the GA review. I did find a bit in the peer review, but it just said to move the prices to the infobox, didn't say whether the prices should actually be there (I was under the impression prices should only be mentioned for consoles, and even then, only under a SKU section). Could you point me to them? Thanks! Fin©™ 16:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the reference screwup. I'm still unsure of whether to include pricing, so I think I'll bring it up on WPT:VG. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through the peer review as well, and noticed suggestions about pricing. Peer reviews aren't necessarily "expert" views on how the article should be. If they violate a policy: it certainly shouldn't be followed. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory (item #4 in that section).RobJ1981 (talk) 12:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo System

Hey, I do not understand the why the Untitled 8th Generation Nintendo Console should be deleted. It has been confirmed to be in development. Does it just need more information? --Jak (talk) 22:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bk3oe3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bk3oe3.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) 05:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

balance boards

Hello...

This is about Wikipedia's "Balance board" article, most of which was written by me.

The intro paragraph added by Just64helpin on August 16, 2008 above the table of contents called attention to the use of wobble boards in rehabilitation after injury. Because injury rehabilitation is a more desperate need than the other uses of balance boards, I think highlighting that information is a good idea. After reading that intro paragraph, I added "rehabilitation after injury" to a sentence in the article's "Wobble Board" section, made an intra-wiki link of it and made that sentence the first sentence of the article's "Wobble Board" section. I didn't change the wording, in the first paragraph of the "Uses and Users" section that I wrote, of the mention of rehabilitation after injury, which is also an intra-wiki link.

The addition of an intro paragraph above the table of contents is a useful move. I would like to think of some sentence or short paragraph that could go there that would give a quick overview of the topic, to fill gaps that aren't filled by the table of contents' section titles or by what can be understood from looking at the photo next to the table of contents. But most of this posting of mine is an explanation of why the August 16 intro paragraph doesn't do that job. Although it gives information that is useful, it creates confusion that makes its benefit seem to me not worth its cost.

I plan to delete that intro paragraph from the article. In case my criticisms of it can be answered and outweighed, I will wait a few days before deleting it.

Here are problems with the mention of wobble boards in the August 16, 2008 intro paragraph:

About half of the manufacturers of wobble boards call them "balance boards" rather than "wobble boards" in their catalogs. I've met people who use the term "balance board" to denote only a wobble board who use only "bongo board" to denote a rocker-roller. Other people make the similar mistake of using "balance board" to denote only a rocker board or only a rocker-roller or only both of those two, i.e., those people classify wobble boards as something other than balance boards.

A result of this kind of exclusionary language is that fans of one type of balance board feel offended by hearing fans of another type treat that other type as more of a balance board than the type they favor.

The Wikipedia article's taxonomy of the four types of boards, which I found already there when I found the article and started expanding it, is a framework that functions well for two reasons: 1) It recognizes that each of the four types is a balance board and is as much of a balance board as any of the other three. 2) It uses the fulcrum as the taxonomy's criterion, and the fulcrum is what characterizes a user's experience. The intro paragraph of August 16, 2008 (above the table of contents), by singling out the wobble board (in the sentence "The term 'balance board' also has use in connection with the wobble board, a common device in fitness training and rehabilitation after an injury"), could leave a reader with the impression, caused by that sentence's vague phrase "in connection with," that a wobble board isn't as much of a balance board as the other three types. I assume that this impression wasn't intended by Just64helpin, and that the point of the sentence was only that wobble boards are common in fitness training and injury rehabilitation, which they certainly are. Wobble boards are used for injury rehabilitation much more often than any of the other three types of boards is, but including that quoted sentence in the intro paragraph, above the table of contents, could leave a reader with the inaccurate impression that none of the other three types of boards is used for injury rehabilitation and could leave the reader unsure whether the other three types of boards are common in fitness training.

---

In the August 16, 2008 intro paragraph (above the table of contents), mentioning "bongo board" has these problems:
--From what I've heard and read, only one of the four types of balance board (a rocker-roller) is called a "bongo board" by people (some people), generically.
--From what I've heard and read, only the kind of rocker-roller that has a groove in its roller for crosswise guidance is called a "bongo board" by people (some people), generically.
--The term "bongo board" ("Bongo Board") is a brand name (of the product in the article's top photo, a product which is no longer produced). If the heirs of the Bongo Board's deceased inventor and manufacturer saw this kind of inaccurate mention of the brand name, they might be offended or consider it an infringement of a trademark.
--A different product, the Bongo Balance Board, is currently produced by a different company.

Calling rocker-rollers "bongo boards" is more inaccurate than calling facial tissues "kleenex" because anyone who wants to use and tries to use one brand of tissues can use any other and gets approximately the same experience out of it, but someone who is adept on a rocker-roller with crosswise guidance will probably fall off an Indo Board or rola bola (two kinds of rocker-rollers without crosswise guidance) the first time they try one of those. Using the term "a bongo board" to denote any of the three types of balance boards that aren't rocker-roller boards (rocker boards, wobble boards, sphere-and-ring boards) is like using the word "kleenex" not only for other brands of tissues but also for paper napkins, paper towels, toilet paper, handkerchiefs and rags. But the inaccuracy of "kleenex" is less trouble than "bongo boards" because Kleenex tissues are still in stores in 2008 and are still worth buying. Compared to most of the recent and current rocker-rollers, the Bongo Board was clumsy and stiff. The models by Vewdo, Pivit, KZT, Fitterfirst and Holoholo handle like a 2008 Lexus compared to Bongo Board's 1953 Chevy. An example that shows more equivalently than "kleenex" what's wrong with the generic term "bongo boards" is using "victrolas" to denote turntables, tape recorders, CD players and iPods.

If it seems useful and appropriate to include the term "Bongo Board" near the top of the article (instead of only where it already occurs in several places further into the article), the top photo's caption could include it, e.g.:
"In this photo: the Bongo Board, a rocker-roller board. In photos below: other types of balance boards and other models of rocker-roller boards."
OR:
"In this photo: the Bongo Board of the 1950's through 1970's, a rocker-roller board. In photos below: other types of balance boards and other models of rocker-roller boards."
But I don't favor adding the term "Bongo Board" to the caption because then it would seem necessary to add captions including a model's name for the article's other photos, and those additions would look like clutter and advertising.

---

In that August 16, 2008 intro paragraph (above the table of contents), the specifying of surfing, wakeboarding, skateboarding, skiing and snowboarding arbitrarily omits other sports in which the need for balance skill is obvious (bicycling, motorcycling, ice skating, rollerblading, windsurfing, gymnastics, running, etc.) and omits sports in which the crucial need for balance skill doesn't become obvious until old age or some other cause of balance failure occurs (boxing, wrestling, martial arts, basketball, tennis, volleyball, horseback riding, archery, golf, etc.). There are table tennis coaches who consider balance the most fundamental skill of that sport. There are teams in the National Football League (of the U.S.) and the National Hockey League (of the U.S.) that use balance boards in their daily training. I don't know of any sport that doesn't depend on balance skill. In the case of skateboarding, snowboarding, surfing and wakeboarding, there is a physical resemblance to balanceboarding's equipment and to the body's position in relation to the equipment, but those similarities of shape and posture give the misleading impression that those sports depend more on balance skill and on balance-board skill than other sports do.

And selecting athletics, in general, as the primary area of balance-board use (in the article's August 16, 2008 intro paragraph) also seems arbitrary to me, since the non-athletic uses (which I listed in the Wikipedia article's "Uses and Users" section) are as important to the people who use balance boards for those purposes as sports are to athletes. If there is any use of balance boards that warrants being considered their primary use, I think it is their use in expanding the brain's neural networks, since that area is where the most pervasive influence on a person comes from. On another hand, to the parents of the dozens of children that I've trained to ride a rocker-roller board, the effect that is considered more important than any other is what the riding does to a person's character (develop self-control, self-awareness, self-acceptance and a lack of interest in making excuses). From two other perspectives, the most important use of a balance board is to impress a young woman (or a young man); in the opinion of an individual and the species, the most important event in the individual's life is the successful attempt to attract a mate, and the use of a balance board for this purpose might be not only its most important use but also its most common one and the one that most commonly motivates its purchase. On the other hand, ignoring the needs of the species, the purpose of using a balance board that is my own main one is to have fun, alone. Or to feel young. Can what balance boards are mainly about ever be objectively decided? If not, why ask the article's intro paragraph to try to make that decision?

Balance boards are no longer in their infancy and have also advanced beyond the stage of trying to get up from crawling and toddle. They have made a lot of technological progress since the Bongo Board came out 55 years ago. They are at the age or stage of what might be viewed as an elementary or middle school child. But the knowledge of balance boards is not as advanced as a middle school student's. Cars and movies are twice as old as the Bongo Board and have been studied much more than it has. What is understood about the biology of balance boards in 2008 is a little more than the mechanics of muscles and ligaments. When neuroscience follows up on Frank Belgau's research and figures out how balance boards actually work (how they work on a user's brain), the 2008 idea of what balance boards do will come to seem as incomplete as the commonsense idea that the biological function of eating is to fill a hungry stomach or mouth. In the meantime, I vote for not deciding that balance boards are mainly for training in physical balance or sports or for physical therapy (or for any other readily observable use).

Thanks for your patience if you've read this far. Because deleting someone else's contribution is a bossy thing to do, I've felt a need to justify my criticisms in a very thorough way.

DavidMaisel (talk) 18:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

balance board & lead

I didn't know that including a lead above the table of contents is a Wikipedia policy. Thanks for that info and the citation of "WP:LEAD." I'll write a lead that fits the description at "WP:LEAD." DavidMaisel (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Disco house

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Disco house, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Disco house is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Disco house, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

balance board article

On the two computers that I've looked at, a Mac and a Windows PC, one of the article's two side-by-side photos of wobble boards is a bit higher than the other even though they are exactly the same size. If you know how to get them perfectly lined up or can think of where to look for a fix, please let me know-- or just make the fix yourself.

After reading the guideline Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid, I think that you interpreted the self-reference prohibition more broadly than it is intended. From what I read there, the rule isn't against letting readers know where in an article to find something or letting them know which related information the current sentence develops. If I missed something in my reading of the rules, your deletions could still be necessary.

As someone who hasn't been contributing to Wikipedia for a long time--only about a year, I think--there's still a lot for me to learn about how the system works. So, I want to thank you for the pointers I got from your edits and your Edit Summaries about several rules and procedures: an article's lead, captions, red links, blue links, piped links, contractions, boldface and italic type, upper-case letters and edit summaries.

Your captioning of the two photos of the wobble boards instead of describing them in the body of the article was a good idea.

To reword a caption of mine, you wrote, "Video of a wobble board after it IS flicked once." Every time I saw my old version, which was "...after it WAS flicked once," I was left dissatisfied with the ambiguity of "once," which could sound as if it meant not "one flick" but rather "sometime in the past." Your version expressed my intention clearly.

INJURY RISK & PREVENTION:

The new photo of a wrist guard owes its scenery to you. Your Edit Summary's raising the issue of contextlessness got me thinking of how to present the situation.

Better than an image of a skeleton's thin bones: a video of a person writhing in pain and wailing after a balance board accident or a video of that person staying home while recuperating for two months. I don't have such videos, but an image of a skeleton might evoke that plight more effectively than text can.

The verbs you used to describe a balance board user's contact with the floor and wall after losing control of the board are considerably milder than a description of the contact that sometimes occurs. I fear that substituting your verbs for mine can prevent a reader from realizing that wristguards and a helmet that has a face mask are necessary. Being familiar with the balanceboarding experience of about a hundred people, I feel a need to describe the danger bluntly. I remember a fall I took off a balance board in 1967.

Because you have spent time and careful attention that raised the quality of the balance board article, I regret that after August I probably won't have the time to explain any differences I have with revisions of yours. DavidMaisel (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Star Trek (disambiguation)

Regarding your contribution to the page, please keep in mind that the disambiguation page is for subjects that are associated with the same title (ie "Star Trek"), not subjects that happen to have "Star Trek" in the title. The page is not meant to be a glossary. Feel free to contact me if you have any concerns. Just64helpin (talk) 17:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure I agree with you, as I've seen many disambiguation pages that don't adhere to a strict usage. For example, look at Pac-Man (disambiguation). Asher196 (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)