Jump to content

User talk:Kridian

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello Kridian! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- zzuuzz (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

re: neurofunk article and editor bakemono

[edit]

Robert,

I apologize for not getting to this sooner. As of late I have been moving into a new apartment and in the past three days I've finally set up internet. If you could give me a small amount of time to do some research into the matter and allow me to get back to you, I will see what assistance I can lend towards solving this problem. :-)

Peace,

אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 14:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for getting back to me steve. bakemono proposed to submit his version of the definition of neurofunk so im waiting to see it. maybe, him and i can reach an agreement and wiki will win at the end. otherwise, i think i did an excellent job - unfortunately alone - as far as this article goes. i appeciate your help.

best, robert

Describe, Group, Preview

[edit]

Thank you for your edits. Please consider 1) Describing each edit with the Edit Summary box (above the Save Page button), 2) Grouping edits together to reduce the number of edits in the Page History to make it easier for fellow editors to monitor the edits, 3) Using the Show Preview button. Hu 14:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Well...

[edit]

What exactly do you propose, then? I see no long-term solution unless we can reach a long-term compromise and we find some sort of "middle ground" in the whole disagreement. But as I said before, I'm open to amicable talks that lead to logical conclusions and conform to Wikipedia guidelines. But as it is, you can't just write an article without any factual basis to support your claims -- which is what you've done to the Neurofunk article -- and then try and pass it off as absolute fact. If it's one of many possible "theories" about Neurofunk, whether it's truly a style, its separation from Techstep, etc., fine... but it has to be written as such in a much broader article that lists criticisms of said claim and points out that it's only 'theory' (one of many) and not the straight, undeniable, pedantic history of the evolution of Neurofunk, as you're trying to pass it off as now.

Bakemono 23:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:Rls00840.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rls00840.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Rls03594.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rls03594.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Creepz.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Creepz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Creepz1.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Creepz1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rls00673.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rls00673.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Maelstrom1.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Maelstrom1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Maestrom.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Maestrom.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:P51UKLP01FRONT.JPG

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:P51UKLP01FRONT.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neurofunk

[edit]

Hey there Kridian. The reason I put that tag on the Neurofunk article is that the lists (signature recordings, signature mixes) are very very long and really not necessary - the rest of the article is a very good explanation, and covers most bases as it is listing artists and record labels, so the lists of tracks really don't add much. What I propose is that the list should be replaced with a few samples. With samples and also finding references (which is definitely something I'd be prepared to sit down and help with), this article is reaching GA level. - Zeibura Talk 20:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


hello zeibura

[edit]

i agree. i deleted perhaps 40% to 50% of the tunes on signature recordings leaving only the pure classics (20 for each list). i also deleted signature mixes - not necessary - and ended up deleting "see also techstep, etc" which was not necassary either. thanks for you advice. if you wish to add samples, pls go ahead. i just dont know how to do it as i mostly have vinyls - perhaps its easier if you have some cd versions. let me know what you wish to do and how many samples you think will work well. maybe i can send you a list of 5 classics. thanks, kridian (rob).

Hey, I propose we continue this discussion at Talk:Neurofunk. I've made a post there :) - Zeibura Talk 20:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Creepz1.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Creepz1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Rls07457.jpg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Rls07457.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Sinthetix - Cryogenic.ogg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sinthetix - Cryogenic.ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Ryme Tyme - We Enter (Optical Vocal Remix).ogg

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryme Tyme - We Enter (Optical Vocal Remix).ogg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Kemal - Glimpse of Truth.ogg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kemal - Glimpse of Truth.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale

[edit]

Hey Kridian, cheers for telling me, I've added the copyright info and fair use rationale. Copyright info is easy to find on discogs btw; the rule of thumb is that the music belongs to who wrote it (which isn't as important in this case) and the recording belongs to the record label (which is very important). so if in doubt, a "Recording: copyright (record label) (year of release)" will be enough to save it from deletion for a time.

Sorry I haven't done much on neurofunk recently, I've been getting distracted by another couple of fervent pushes for GA promotion and also releasing an EP in real life. I'll sit down one night soon and just look for loads more citations. - Zeibura (Talk) 13:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Zeibura

[edit]

thanks again for a good job, its excellent to work out this article with someone who knows. whenever you have time, pls help out ´cause i believe its valuable for dnb and good luck with the EP.

Kridian

Neurofunk refs

[edit]

Hey man, I'll get down to that as soon as. I haven't really been here tonight, been a little distracted, but hopefully tomorrow. Nice work on all the editing you've been doing! - Zeibura (Talk) 23:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.. I was trying last night and this morning, and struggling a bit, there don't seem to be many on the internet. What sources did you use to write the article? - Zeibura (Talk) 07:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Image Copyright problem
Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Rls00673.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. Jusjih (talk) 02:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phace interview

[edit]

Hey. Yeah, it won't let you insert the myspace link, but the same thing appeared in MixMag so that's no big deal, you just need to say what issue and when it was. As it happens that's already in the references list (Neurofunk#References) - just add: <ref name="Phace" /> at the end of any statement you want to use it as a reference as. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Neurofunk. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tiptoety talk 23:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


hi tiptoey

[edit]

i took the text - basically 98% of my sole writing since late 2006 - back to a minimal form because i want to re-arrange the format with new clips and art, apart from already having additional updated info for 2008 so please, if you dont mind, leave it at the place where i had left it until art and clips arrives in a couple of days.

thanks

Kridian

Neurofunk

[edit]

Hi. Glad you're happy with the infobox overhaul. What kind of difficulty are you having with the link? Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, an interview in Mixmag. Is it a mixmag.net link? If so, maybe the problem is (or was) that mixmag.net prevents any linking without permission -- e.g. maybe the interview is still copyrighted -- but this is interpreted as spam/vandalism protection by Wikipedia. (I'm just guessing.) I got no results when I tried a quick search for Phace at the mixmag site (does that sound odd?), so, if you provide the link, I can try it/look into it. (If needs be, make sure it isn't treated as a link when you post it here, e.g. by replacing the dots with "[dot]".)
  • Google suggests you asked Zeibura and Tiptoey for help, but did they draw a blank or just get distracted? Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked added, in the right place I hope (second ref). You should be able to use the format there for similar kinds of links in the future; just make sure there's no spaces in the internet address. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, except I kept the "by Francesco Caccamo (ATIM)" info that might help finding a new source if the drumandbassmovement.it link stops working. Also, why retrieved January 2007 rather than April 2008?
I also did some formatting elsewhere in the article (see the article's history page for notes). Hope it's okay. Some of the "&"s looked like parts of band/collaboration names, so I left them alone.
I agree that editing refs can be tricky. I reckon they'd be easier to handle outside the main text of the article, but maybe there's a good reason why they aren't.
I also removed the Energy Flash refs -- you don't have any link or links for that? Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I've commented out the name in the Phace interview ref here and moved ref 3's (No U-Turn Records) definition next to ref 1 and ref 2 in paragraph 1 here. I've then added another reference to it here, next to Konflict. Hope what I've done is correct and you can see what's involved.
My only suggestion for the pictures is that it might be a good idea to stagger the We Enter and Tightrope/Climax covers rather than have them squeeze the text between themselves, in case people look at the article in a small browser window. I'll read through the article again a bit later (fresh look) and see if it's still working well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS The return of the problem with the infobox colors is because User:Nazzzz has reverted {{Infobox Music genre}} (check out its recent history). I've left a couple of messages on his/her (I guess it's his) talkpage and am waiting for a followup response.

att: sardanaphalus

[edit]

great job!! i can write about the music but i have difficulties with technical work here. your changes made it better so it inspired me to clean up the article a bit. the info box should remain silver unless anyone has a good reason to paint it black or pink for that matter. here´s some necessary changes:

1) no u turn link is there because the label pioneered techstep and neurofunk. actually, the same crew who created techstep in 1996 - trace & ed rush - created neurofunk in 1998 - optical, matrix, ryme tyme & ed rush - as a result of no u-turn label being a very tight knit crew where very few people were welcome to interfere. what happened later was that there was a split of this crew, not for musical reasons but mainly for money reasons. so no u-turn link is valuable for the article as a whole and thats where the original simon reynolds' coining the term "neurofunk" can be found. otherwise, for actual proof of neurofunk as a subgenre, the noisia & phace interviews are the best because it mentions all the pioneers of this style and contemporary artists who continues doing it. also, in order to find reinolds' coining the neurofunk term on no u-turn link, you have to search hard within their web while its an easy click to find the same text on noisia & phace interview.

2) konflict: any mention of konflict should be linked to phace interview.

3) neurofunk: any mention of neurofunk linked to noisia & phace interviews but 1 link is enough i guess.

4) ed rush, optical and matrix: linked to nosia & phace interviews.

5) i added ANALOG to definition of neurofunk in relation to wormhole album. phace interview should be linked where analog is mentioned because they claim that - according to them - the true sound of neurofunk was the early ANALOG sound of ed rush & optical which i call "the prototype sound". of course that phace themselves changed that by going digital between 2003 & 2007.

my suggestion is that we delete no u-turn´s "a, b. and c" in relation to neurofunk but keep the link there as the root cause of the style since it also claims the creation of techstep, aside pioneering neurofunk. maybe we should write next to no u-turn link: SOURCE OF NEUROFUNK AND TECHSTEP, something in that vein, otherwise all references should be linked to noisia & phace interview, specially phace which is more complete.

do what you think is best with pictures but i see the dubstep article with photos as the perfect example of how neurofunk should be. how can we get neurofunks infobox the size of dubstep's box?? both subgenres are similar and small so neurofunk's box should be the same size as dubstep's. also, can we get clips box smaller - as in dubstep - on the left hand side with text flowing on right hand side??

Kridian

Great, teamwork is what Wikipedia is all about. First, as you've seen, the working version of {{Infobox Music genre}} has been restored. So long as no-one reverts it again, the colors should stay put. About your points:
1) So, do you only want one link to the No U-Turn ref, the one at the start of the article? I replaced the one next to the Reynolds quote with one that attributes the quote to Reynolds' book. I've also moved the original (the first) ref to the end of the sentence so it can be read as applying to neurofunk and techstep (as you're saying above). Sorry if I've misunderstood anything.
2) I think Wikipedia style is only to ref the first mention of something that's repeated during an article (in this case, Konflict). So the single link next to Konflict at the start of the Overview section should be fine.
3) Yes, you get the idea, one link should be enough.
4) Already taken care of in the opening sentence, yes?
5) Okay, I added a link to the Phace ref next to "analog". Hope that works.
I checked out Dubstep and have tried staggering the two covers in Neurofunk I mentioned before. I reckon the rest of the pic positions look fine. Neurofunk's infobox height is a bit more than Dubstep's but that's because there's more info in it; the widths look the same here, which is what I think counts. Or are you seeing something different?
I'm not sure changing the size of the clips box and moving it into the text is a good idea. It looks a bit cramped in Dubstep here. Also, the cover pics in the text already bring it to life and trying to cram the clips box in there too might be too much. If you wanted me to try it anyway, where would you put it (beside which paragraph)?
I'm going to read through the article again now and might rephrase a couple of sentences. Anything you don't like can be undone. Sardanaphalus (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. You're right and I left the "I'm going to stop as I think I've started rewriting the article" summary when I realized I'd probably got carried away. Sorry. I didn't undo the rewriting in case you found any of it useful. So, I've now restored the article to the point before I began rewriting it, i.e. just after I'd worked through the points above. If you can say whether everything above is okay or if/how refs and positions still need adjustment, I can try to make these adjustments and the article should be back on track. Sorry again for getting carried away. Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and thanks for filling in more of the story. Just seen you've restored the article to how it was before I tried sorting out any of your points above -- does that mean I misunderstood your ref and pic position requests, or are you rethinking them? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got your latest and done the Phace refs in the Overview section. Do you only want one U-Turn ref now, at the very end of the article's first sentence (i.e. after "techstep.") or did I get the wrong idea?
Those two URLs you gave me -- Lodge and Inamorata albums -- do you want them included in an External references section, or as footnote refs like the Phace interview etc, or are they just for my education (thanks!)...?
The Jazz fusion article: did you try to point out on its talkpage where you saw it going off the rails (if so, did people just ignore you?) or did you think it's too far gone? Can you remember a date when it was in good shape? I'm just curious to see the difference, so don't worry if this bit too much distraction to answer now. Sardanaphalus (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad the links are now okay. Re "notes" and "references", I get the idea the Wikipedia community isn't sure of a difference between them. I'd say that those little superscript numbers next to words in the text are footnote markers, so I'd assume they'd link to a "Notes" or "Footnotes" section toward the end of an article, but many (most?) pages seem to link them to a section headed "References". Also, the template that tends to be used to display them is called {{reflist}}, not {{footnotelist}} or {{notelist}} or something like that. I'd say references are things like book citations, like the one in Neurofunk. So, yes, it seems a bit confused in Wikipedia to me. You can find out what the little "a"s, "b"s, etc next to the footnote/reference numbers mean by clicking on them.
What you say has happened to Jazz fusion is the biggest concern I think I have with Wikipedia. Let's say an article reached a near-ideal condition sometime in 2006. Yes, it's possible its condition now in 2008 might be even slightly more improved, but isn't it far more likely to've gone downhill? Also, those folk coming to it for the first time in 2008 will probably never see how it was in 2006 and might then spend time and energy trying to improve it when that had already been done by 2006!! That seems a real flaw to me.
I visited the Lodge and Inamorata links but was disappointed that the links to clips in the Lodge thread don't seem to work...? The ones in the Inamorata thread worked fine tho. What I like is that there's some real melody as well as all the rhythmic funk going on -- hmm guess that makes me old-fashioned -- but I'm also guessing that's a major point of the style. Okay, weird, possibly heavy question time: Do you know if any of these funk fusion artists use things like cellular automata and artificial life to produce and explore rhythms (and maybe melodies/harmonies too)?

Notes→References: Okay. I've just seen that you've added a mention of Reynolds' book to the opening paragraph, but with a footnote link to U-Turn...? If you want everything as "References" only, the details of Reynolds' book will need to become a footnote, maybe something like this:

Neurofunk is a sub-genre of drum and bass pioneered by producers Ed Rush, Optical and Matrix,[1][2][3] between 1997 and 1998 in London, England as a progression of techstep.[4] It was further developed...

......

References

  1. ^ Interview with Noisia from dnbforum.nl (retrieved June 2007).
  2. ^ Interview with Phace from drumandbassmovement.it (retrieved January 2007).
  3. ^ No U-Turn Records
  4. ^ Simon Reynolds Energy Flash: A Journey Through Rave Music and Dance Culture (Picador, ISBN 0-330-35056-0) (excerpt).

If a footnote link is used more than once in an article, as (currently) with the Phace and No U-Turn links, then Wikipedia will automatically add the little "a"s, "b"s, etc. So, as far as I know, the only way to avoid these would be to refer to each footnote only once. I don't think this is what you'd want and probably me neither, as it would remove some associations/information. Yes, I wish this whole footnote/reference stuff in Wikipedia was more user-friendly.

Thanks for the latest links, especially the one giving some context to Inamorata. Don't worry about my "heavy" question -- it's just an idea I've had idling around the back of my head for years, like the old 'If I was gonna write a novel, this is what I'd write' thing but in music rather than words.

Okay, I hope what I've done is correct. I reinstated (and extended) the copyedit of the opening paragraph as there were a few too many commas hanging around. Sardanaphalus (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Have added the reference and hope it's in the right place. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The template Ndash is being considered for deletion"

[edit]

Hi again Kridian. Yes, these little messages are appearing because the deletion of the {{ndash}} template is being discussed. I've asked the user who proposed the discussion whether there's a less disruptive way to indicate this situation -- if not, we could either live with them until the discussion is over or I could paste the article into a word processor and replace all the {{ndash}}es in it with &nbsp;&ndash; (which is what {{ndash}} does). Sardanaphalus (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hope you've seen that the little messages have now been removed. I did some sound engineering but it was a long time ago and anyway I've lost touch with the music scene since then. If you're leaving Wikipedia, at least for now, pay a visit some weeks or months down the line and see how Neurofunk stands. Better still, start adding material on another subject, related or unrelated. There'll always be something needing to be done. Sardanaphalus (talk) 22:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. The problem I see with Wikipedia is that the quality of articles can go down as well as up over time and unless you go rooting through the history, you don't know whether what you're looking at is an improvement on something that was dire but previously much better, or something that seems pretty good but actually is beginning to degrade because it was once top quality, etc, etc, etc. The good version or versions of the jazz fusion article are there, but to find them will need some looking through the history from around six months ago, after which I'd try reintroducing the good content here and there, not all at once, otherwise the people currently looking at the article would probably recoil. The version six months ago today is this one (last edited 13 March 2008) -- I haven't read it, but if it's any better than the current version, you could try using it to replace one or two paragraphs or sentences in the current version, then maybe one or two more, etc... Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:55, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neurofunk

[edit]

Hi again Rob, sorry for the delay before this reply.

You're probably right about the article, i.e. try leaving it for a long time (a year?) then visit it again when there may be more consensus about neurofunk. Alternatively, it might be worth including the statement that neurofunk is still relatively new, with diverging opinions among people who follow it. In other words, make your observation about this difficulty part of the article. Also, do you think those people who disagree with you or have a point of view to push would write a section describing their take on the music to sit alongside a section by you? (In other words, include the alternative points of view in the article, so long as they have references.) I think this would follow from the statement that there isn't yet a consensus about the genre. Hopefully anyone new coming to the article would rate your more objective description, and, if they were a neurofunk fan, would either endorse it or improve the objectivity of the opposing section. Okay, that might not happen -- they might make the article even less objective -- but maybe by then there'd be more of a consensus to work with. Just some ideas, but I'd understand if you've had enough of the article at least for now. Hold onto that version you're happiest with, as it might be useful in year's time...

Same goes for the jazz fusion article. Even if you've also had enough of that for now, come back in six months or a year's time, see how it stands and perhaps try putting some of the quality you feel has gone back into it -- it may get a better reception. I'm beginning to think the way to go with any unresolved Wikipedia article is to have people with conflicting views write separate sections (rather than compete for a single description) and then other people who come along can judge for themselves as regards the quality of each section. I guess my belief is that those sections with more substance, more objectivity, would ultimately survive.

This has been a bit rambling, but I don't have time right now to edit and mix it down. Hope it's useful somehow, though. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Kemal and Rob Data

[edit]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Kemal and Rob Data. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kemal and Rob Data. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (File:Sinthetix - Cryogenic.ogg)

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sinthetix - Cryogenic.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ryme Tyme - We Enter (Optical Vocal Remix).ogg listed for deletion

[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ryme Tyme - We Enter (Optical Vocal Remix).ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 15:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rls03594.jpg)

[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Rls03594.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:P51UKLP01FRONT.JPG

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:P51UKLP01FRONT.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Cause 4 Concern - Peep Show.ogg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cause 4 Concern - Peep Show.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Guestp.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Guestp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Matrix & Fierce - Climate.ogg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Matrix & Fierce - Climate.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:05, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Phace - Hot Rock.ogg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Phace - Hot Rock.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rls00673.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rls00673.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Rls07457.jpg

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Rls07457.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:34, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kridian&oldid=1143859176"