User talk:Acousmana

Please talk!

Hi Acousmana! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited On the Corner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Musical structure. 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) 10:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to On the Corner. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did here at On the Corner.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Dan56 (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Hardvapour, you may be blocked from editing. The reasons you have edited the article are invalid! editorEهեইдအ😎 20:12, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bass music#Merge of Bass music and Future bass. - The120.147.37.23 (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm StarmanW. I noticed that in this edit to Musique concrète, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. 𝒮𝓉𝒶𝓇𝓂𝒶𝓃 𝒲 07:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see that you've edited the article on Rajneesh. I would like to ask you to give your thought on the page move discussion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rajneesh#Requested_move_11_June_2018 Accesscrawl (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Plastic pollution into Plastic. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, please learn how to properly cite references in articles, like for e.g. at Help:Citation Style 1 and so on.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, instead of edit warring, follow BRD and other processes while editing Wikipedia. Don't make WP:POINT reverts or edits, nor push for your new revision if it was reverted. Unfriendly and ignorant behavior is only going to do you harm in the long run.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You called these warnings and bits of advice as accusations and snarky comments, practically accusing me of uncivil behavior and swinging my dick. Interestingly uncivil way of WP:GAMING the system (especially WP:SANCTIONGAME). However, I already warned you where such type of behavior is leading. If you are uncapable of listening to friendly and constructive advice (WP:GOODFAITH), then go on, hit the wall with your head. I don't care.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miki, if issuing warnings and making threats helps you cope that's OK, I'm comfortable with that. Thanks for your advice. Acousmana (talk) 18:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "cope", or any "threats", this is basic editorial procedure on Wikipedia. If you don't understand that, and answer to it with uncivil behavior then or 1) learn how to properly cope with Wikipedian community guidelines 2) or do not edit Wikipedia with such a behavior where is making everyone and everything less constructive and friendly place. It's simple as that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Miki, some day I will be as friendly as you, really I will, you are such a swell guy, thanks for caring. Acousmana (talk) 18:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from removing sourced material, as you did to Intelligent dance music, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Infobox changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you.gentlecollapse6 (talk) 06:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of addressing substantive issues with poor quality sourcing. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually. Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you can adequately explain how 1) a professional music publication and 2) a published work of academic sociology don't constitute reliable sources for discussion of a musical genre/scene, I’ll be happy to hear it. In the meantime, try to avoid removing sourced content. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: single mention in a non-notable record review, by non-notable writer, and a random mention in a sociology text book, you think that constitutes reliable sourcing? It doesn't, you simply think this term should be mentioned because you have an attachment to it and would like to include it, no other reason. No real evidence that term has a notable history of usage. Acousmana (talk) 00:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable record review" according to who? "Random mention" according to who? Of course, these are all your biased opinions. I think this term should be used because I have "an attachment to it"? No, it should be used because professional sources have used them. Try again. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve also failed to account for your original reversion, which removed several other alternate genre names which were included in prominent publications. Seems as though it’s your antipathy to the term "experimental techno" that trumped basic Wiki etiquette. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 00:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: it's really very simple, demonstrate, using multiple WP:RS citations that experimental techno is a term that is widely used interchangeably with the term intelligent dance music, do this and there's no objection. This is weak sourcing: Insomniac and a sociology text book. It's the "any old wank will do" approach to article production that's problematic here. A source being professional (a meaningless declarative in this context) has zero to do with it being reliable. Acousmana (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from União do Vegetal into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. 💵Money💵emoji💵^{Talk💸Help out at CCI!} 14:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Techno. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:03, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: stop leaving silly warning messages on user pages in lieu of consulting citations you have been provided with. It's really lazy, and kinda juvenile actually. Acousmana (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)]][reply]

I'll repeat this on the article talk page, but: the claim is currently unsourced. It's that simple. Nothing in the body mentions "four on the floor" and your sentence in the lead does not contain a citation. If you want to provide this citation to justify the sentence, I invite you to do so. Otherwise, it is unsourced. gentlecollapse6 (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gentlecollapse6: you have been provided with a source, a publication offered in the list of references, you have refused to consult it. Not sure why that is? Acousmana (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Techno shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Binksternet (talk) 16:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- MrX 🖋 22:15, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acousmana. Could you please stop adding superfluous tags to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation? You added two yesterday, which I removed, and the you just re-added again. The article is subject to discretionary sanctions (see above). There are editing restrictions on the article: If an edit you make is reverted you must discuss on the talk page and wait 24 hours before reinstating your edit. ← You violated that restriction. Also, if you tag an article that is actively being edited, you should at least explain your reasoning on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 22:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: sup bruv, think you would agree the lead is shit innit, fails MOS:LEAD, subject is still in the news cycle, current event is being documented, hence the tags (entirely legitimate considering the battleground for US partisan politics the article clearly is). You do know the English speaking world is not just America, right? Acousmana (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have concerns about the article, you should be discussing them on the article talk page. Tag bombing is useless, bruv. - MrX 🖋 12:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MrX: bruv, you are one - of how many active editors over there? - taking issue with the "tag bombing" - tags exist to be used, if you have an issue with said functionality take it up on the talk page, not here. Acousmana (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acousmana, thanks for your recent work on Acousmatic Room Orchestration System. I see you removed the "product plug" content. Does the current version justify removing the "Advert" label in your opinion? thanks and best regards, Stevo1425 (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acousmana, I've seen that you are removing all statements from George Clanton related articles which are based on primary sources. Per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources may be used in some cases such as when the statements which are backed by them are straightforward and descriptive. I believe that statements based on Bandcamp and Twitter in this case fall under this, as they are also covered by secondary sources. --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeternus: it's advertising/marketing spiel by the artist on the page of an album they are selling, it has no place on Wikipedia, incidentally, do you by any chance have a COI you wish to declare with respect to Clanton based content? I see you have previously worked as a paid editor on music related articles. Acousmana (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both claims are partially covered by secondary sources. I don't know Clanton personally and I was never contacted by him or anyone else about writing Clanton-related articles. If I was, I would declare COI as I previously did. --Λeternus ^(talk) 12:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeternus: my view is stick to the secondary sources, brand/music awareness initiatives that artists engage in - to promote themselves and their music - should be ignored, the content is not encyclopedic, it's PR. Acousmana (talk) 13:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, I agree with you in principle. Is there a mechanism which can help us distinguish PR from sources which are created independently so we don't have to step on eggshells in the future? --Λeternus ^(talk) 13:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aeternus: a wider discussion needs to happen about use of compromised sources, in lieu of that, use common sense. The nature of the music industry, with branding, marketing, influencing etc., means that there simply isn't a lot of 'real' music journalism, often it has more to do with the size of an artist's publicity budget. Note, Vice, for example, break down how their content is created. Editors working on music articles should not be inadvertently operating as publicists for record labels and their artists, but many are doing just this. Acousmana (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the auto notice of an undo, I accidentally clicked and undid your edit. My apologies. Meters (talk) 21:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Electronica (music) – What part of #Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution don't you understand? wbm1058 (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Wbm1058: apologies, error resulting from attempt to undo a page move mess created by User:ItsAlwaysLupus, did so incorrectly, then requested a technical assist to sort mess, there were COPYVIOs on the article here and here, but added by the moving editor. Acousmana (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EDM article Edit - You just reverted my edit which corrected the mis-use of the term EDM. You said... "Electronic dance music' is an established term in academic literature on the subject and it precedes usage as "genre,". This is irrelevant. I was not questioning the use of the term "electronic dance music", I was talking about the incorrect use of the term EDM. Therefore, how is acedemic literature on "electronic dance music" relevant in any way or any reason for you to revert the edit? The articles make it clear that EDM and Electronic dance music are very different things, and this is the widespread belief amoungst the educated in the dance music scene. Therefore, what reason ws there to revert the edit? Did you read the sources in full? Please re-instate my edit if you cannot come up with a valid explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth-Purificashine (talk • contribs) 17:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am not a Wikipedia aficionado but I wanted to ask how you got a hold of the Corpus Iuris Hibernici. I am trying to find a copy for myself (physical or virtual) but so far have failed. If you have the time to let me know how you got to read it and where I may be able to find it, my email is [email protected] . Thank you. 12:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC).

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Resident Advisor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page British. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Grip (percussion). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I disagree with what you are doing to the article. The previous book sold very well. Is it ok if I revert it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.Turner99 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Acousmana reported by User:J.Turner99 (Result: ). Thank you. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 2020 United States election protests, you moved the page to "List of 2020 United States election protests" without any discussion. I apologize because I had to revert your move, but this kind of move needs furthur discussion. If you need help of placing an RM discussion, read WP:Requested moves for more information. Seventyfiveyears (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm J.Turner99. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life: Revision history have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Please stop reverting my edits. If you think better refs are required, then please by all means find a better referance. J.Turner99 (talk) 12:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

na I am sorry, you are right. I assumed by the rude manner you typed the edit description in, that you had reverted my edit. J.Turner99 (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, no worries. Acousmana (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why you reverted my constructive edit, with no edit summary or explanation. I assume that I'm missing something here, as I've not done anything wrong. Thank you. Oluwadamilola Abayomiolorunkoje-Ogunwale (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acousmana. You were reported for a 1RR violation at Jordan Peterson. I declined to block because the situation was unclear. But I suggest you be more careful in the future. You were previously alerted to the WP:ARBAP2 sanctions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston:, I had actually reverted my own edit after seeing discussion on the matter was ongoing. Reporting editor was stirring ****, nothing more. Acousmana (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walrus Ji (talk) 15:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mamata Banerjee. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. There is a separate page for her Government. This is her biography. Understand the difference first. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mamata Banerjee; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Walrus Ji: bro, bombarding folk with notices like this rather than using the article talk page to respond to legitimate discussion is childish, does this type of activity arouse you or something? Acousmana (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Kohl was on the Main page today, - he is remembered in friendship. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Could you please explain why you have reverted my removal of self-promotional material that is in clear violation of wikipedia policy? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jordan_Peterson&diff=1003323097&oldid=1003217780 ) I have explained my reasoning clearly on the talk page but you have not explained your reinsertion of the policy violating material. The edit by that editor was a clear violation of wikipedia policy - the user was previously warned against inserted self-promotional material related to Gary Clark but has persisted. I stated this in the talk page and it is clear cut. The only action of that editor in Wikipedia is to edit articles to insert the (mostly non-notable) academic papers of a single academic (almost certainly his own) and has only ever edited wikipedia article on the precise research topic he has published in. He has received warnings in the past over this. Unless you have a valid reason otherwise could you please restore my edit.

always a good idea to check through article talk pages to see if these issues have arisen previously. Acousmana (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this edit, "more negative" was not supposed to connote "even more negative than the previous review" but simply "this review was more negative than the four star review". However, it occurs to me only now that such a turn of phrase could be a bit of a British-ism, and this is a Canadian topic. Thank you for bringing this to more scrutiny and I've changed this to say "mostly negative review" as the review is overall such and this is the fact I was trying to convey. Notice with regard to your edit summary that WP:AGF requires you to consider ways in which my edit could have been made in good faith before casting aspersions. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: No worries, and it's Peterson "got away with that" (a 4 star review), not you got away with writing "more negative..." I'm waiting for the really negative reviews to roll in. Acousmana (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why do you hate Peterson so much and why are you trying to push a narrative on Wikipedia? J.Turner99 (talk) 18:05, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J.Turner99: "Hate"? odd choice of words. "Push a narrative"? is this you attempting to push a narrative by any chance? Acousmana (talk) 18:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you not hate him? I say push a narrative because your edit history is clear. There is no room for narratives on Wikipedia. "I'm waiting for the really negative reviews to roll in." J.Turner99 (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J.Turner99: this talk page is not a place for you to vent, if you feel you have a legitimate grievance, one that warrants attention, please use an appropriate forum. Acousmana (talk) 18:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to vent about. I am confronting a user who does not appreciate Wikipedia's neutrality policies. J.Turner99 (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J.Turner99: zero interest in your "confrontation," take these personal issues elsewhere please, nothing more to add. Acousmana (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are not personal issues, you are ruining the encyclopedia with these edits. You have been policing Peterson's page and related pages for months and Wikipedia is no place for your opinion, and frankly, I feel these actions are sad.

@J.Turner99: sorry you feel sad, recommend you try reading the new Jordan Peterson book, hear it's very helpful. Acousmana (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate the recommendation, Wikipedia is no place for opinion; good or bad. I'm suprised you said that, given you hate him. J.Turner99 (talk) 20:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah in that case sorry for the misreading on my part then. @J.Turner99: I'd suggest you don't enter a discussion to ask people such loaded questions unless you want us to begin speculating on your own motivations. Notice that there is no neutral position—we all have an opinion, the difference is whether or not we show it in our edits. For instance, I've rewritten a lot of Black Mirror episode articles to Good Article quality. I hope that you cannot tell that I despise the episode "Playtest" and think "Smithereens" is flawless by reading those pages, because if you can then I have failed in my job of summarizing reliable sources. But that does not mean that I cannot talk about my opinions on these subjects in non-article communications with others. This is the standard we need to aim on for political topics too: I may not keep my opinion on Peterson secret in general, but I hope my edits on articles and suggested edits in talk page discussions to resemble those that another person reading the same sources would make. — Bilorv (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: I agree that Smithereens is an excellent episode with an excellent page. When I refer to opinion, I refer to Acousmana edit history is quite clearly, objectively an effort to push their own narrative on to a neutral encyclopedia. The difference between you and Acousmana, is that your edits are not biased and are not systematic. I welcome scrutiny. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@J.Turner99: really didn't want to have to spell it out, but since @Bilorv: clearly has more patience, will reiterate his sentiment - it's permissible for editors to have opinions, points of views, biases, as long as they strictly adhere to Wikipedia's content creation guidelines. If you have evidence to support the assertion that contravention of said guidelines has taken place, would urge you to waste no time in presenting it in the appropriate forum, otherwise, would request you refrain from continuing with these allegations here. Acousmana (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Literally all your edits on Jordan Pterson and related topics are evidence. The problem is, you put your opinion into the edits, that's why you make the edits. You don't make them to make Wikipedia better, you make them because you want your opinion on the page. J.Turner99 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, J.Turner99, when I look at the edit histories of each of you I simply can't agree with your implicit assumption that Acousmana's bias is coming through in their edits any more than yours is with your edits. You might consider that if multiple people suggest that your editing has a flaw in a particular direction then it is worth treating that as quite weighty constructive criticism and only rejecting it after much consideration if you really cannot picture a scenario in which people would offer that criticism in good faith. It is only when looking through your contributions that I see I've already offered you one piece of advice which you have not chosen to follow (on our most recent discussion at my talk page), and that others are documented in your talk page history and in an instance where you inquired about the CVUA anti-vandal training. You should re-read and re-consider all of this advice, because sometimes other people will show you a pattern in your editing that you would never have noticed yourself (I say this because people have done this for me). Glad to find another Black Mirror fan in the wild though.

I suggest that all of us end the discussion here as there are no actions worthy of escalating to other forums and I hope we've all got the point of each other's opinions on this topic. — Bilorv (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv I am not implying that my edits are or are not contructive. Regardless of what they may be, that does not take away from Acousmana edit history. You were wrong to assume I have an implicit assumption. Very dismayed that this is the atitude of an Oxford alumni J.Turner99 (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Okay, I can't help myself from replying one last time. The singular is alumnus and skill in one academic subject does not make an Oxonian inherently smarter or more likely to be correct than anybody else, particularly those who didn't have the privileges for Oxford to be a choice for them.) — Bilorv (talk) 23:08, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excitabat enim fluctus in simpulo ut dicitur Gratidius Acousmana (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verum liceat mihi quaerere quaestiones? J.Turner99 (talk) 08:12, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would highly suggest you provide evidence for this false claim. WP:SPI is always open to you. The sources are clearly unreliable--check the WP:RSP list. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 10:14, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

if it looks like a duck...Acousmana (talk) 10:54, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm a duck, then it should be easy to provide evidence--I'll even self-endorse a CU ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:12, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

self-endorse? good, list the other accounts while you are it, will save me the leg work ; ) Acousmana (talk) 11:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I thought you actually had a couple of masters in mind. What a pity. Let me know if you find anyone! In the meantime, I'm gonna revert you. We can't have garbage sources like the Daily Kos on Wikipedia, now can we? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

depreciation note, "There is consensus that Daily Kos should generally be avoided as a source," but this doesn't negate usage where local consensus may support inclusion - if a statement can be shown to be uncontroversial. This is why you should raise this on the article's talk page so editors can discuss this particular instance of usage per BRD. Acousmana (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't see a consensus to specifically include those sentences. 2) a local consensus can't override community consensus. "but this doesn't negate usage where local consensus may support inclusion - if a statement can be shown to be uncontroversial." Yes, calling a BLP a Nazi is definitely an uncontroversial edit. Who in their right minds would object to such an edit? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"generally," meaning exception may apply, particularly if it's uncontroversial, reality is no one was "called a Nazi" in that material, the quote, where the word "Nazi" is included, yes, unnecessary, but the statements concerning alt-right, fail to see the issue. Acousmana (talk) 12:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and those exceptions are listed here: WP:ABOUTSELF. If we're gonna say a BLP and a bunch of news networks are promoting "Nazi ideology," please provide a legitimate source(s). Thank you! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delude yourself, there are plenty of sources, whoever orginally added that text failed to consult the appropriate literature when drafting the passage, it's lazy. Acousmana (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ONUS would be on them (and on you) ;) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 12:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acousmana, I was still watching this page after a conversation I was involved in above so I noticed this and feel I have to comment: you must not imply that users are socks without evidence in the way that you have done here. It looks like this particular user is willing to respond good-naturedly but another person may not respond the same way. If it is not obvious to somebody like me at a glance why a user is likely to be a sock—and I'm hugely confused as to what your accusation is based on—then you should only do so if presenting clear, strong evidence. (Additionally, it seems to me that you are too focused on the letter of the wording of WP:GUNREL rather than the summary given of the Daily Kos and the discussions in which that summary was established, which I have to say makes it astonishingly difficult to present a serious case for ever using the source for anything.) — Bilorv (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilorv: thanks for the input, I'll bear that in mind going forward. Acousmana (talk) 13:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, I agree with Bilorv's comments. Also, the disputed material was sourced to the DailKos. DK has been deemed a source to avoid. Based on my personal experience I would agree. Springee (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

welcome to the circle jerk: you agree, go you. Acousmana (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Acousmana. Think you might have accidentally removed another user's comment in this diff. Might be good to reinstate. Jlevi (talk) 21:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not sure how that happened? Not intentional. Acousmana (talk) 22:05, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a reminder that you need to notify users when you mention them at WP:COIN. See the top of that page.--- Possibly (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, talk pages are to WP:FOC. Comments like this [[1]] violate WP:NPA. I see you have been given the needed AP2 warning above. If this continues I will take you to the notice boards. Springee (talk) 13:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ach ja, es schau'n aufs Odal voll Hoffnung schon Millionen. Acousmana (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that millions are looking at it and most who do are likely looking because they don't know what an Odal is and were curious what the twitter storm was about. Hence recent. Not that any of that allows you to make a personal attack on the article's talk page. Springee (talk) 13:36, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

calling that an attack seems petty, but be my guest. Acousmana (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The comment is indeed a clear instance of a personal attack. — Bilorv (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andy Ngo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Huff.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is this [[2]] about?Slatersteven (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

recusal. sticking waving to chill discussion? it's laughable, but hey, whatever gets their rocks off. Acousmana (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What has this to do with "appeasement", who is being appeased, and what will happen 10 years from now? Please read wp:talk, talk pages are not for telling us we are wrong or making predictions.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

not worth discussing, you'll have the conservative snowflakes flapping about here with their "editor with an agenda" BS... any minute now. Acousmana (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be argumentatitve, but you do. Regardless of that initial claim, you find it necessary to argue about politics on the talk page without the regard for the purpose of the page. This shows what your true intentions are for the PragerU page, and it is not to improve the page, or the quality of the information, but to make sure that everything contained within the articles conforms to your worldview. No offense, but I think you should consider what good will actually come of this edit war on the page. EytanMelech (talk) 02:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, EytanMelech, just seeing this now, thank you for your comments, I appreciate the feedback. Happy editing : ) Acousmana (talk) 09:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Crypto-libertarianism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#Crypto-libertarianism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Cryptolibertarian. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 26#Crypto-libertarianism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Vaticidalprophet 00:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Oath Keepers. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

are you aroused now after that display of authority? Acousmana (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 23:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Postmodern conservatism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 7#Postmodern conservatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Tucker Carlson. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

This is disputed material and there is no consensus for inclusion at this time. Please self revert [[3]]. Springee (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They made one edit. That is not edit warring. –dlthewave ☎ 02:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, your comments here [[4]] violate WP:NPA. Please remove comments that are focused on editors and not the content. Springee (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have noticed that you are repeatedly changing the description of RSS' position from "right wing" to "far right". Though the source does say "extreme right", this is a debated and highly sensitive edit that requires consensus before inclusion. Please discuss on the article's talk page, and obtain undisputed consensus before making the edit. For a challenged edit, WP:ONUS is on you to establish consensus. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zuby deadlift.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Zuby deadlift.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve included information in the lead that is reflected in one (1) source, and given it the same weight as information that is reflected in 5+ sources. That’s bad and misleading. There’s no consensus that hyperpop began with nu rave band Test Icicles or Hudson Mohawke. Period. Explain yourself. Kkollaps (talk) 02:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wave music, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Keyword and Melancholy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller talk 15:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Staffordshire Bull Terrier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cavalryman (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of links to other articles don't go against this policy, that I can see. It notes that "Wikipedia encompasses many lists of links to articles within Wikipedia that are used for internal organization or to describe a notable subject", and the real issue is when people try to build "a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed". The list of notable artists in Post-Internet would be better as prose with chronology and context, but is also fine for now as a list. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lists grow, anyone can stick a name under "notable" artist, and do so without adhering to WP:NOTABILITY, having a wikipedia article does not qualify someone as "notable."

see also Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

worth noting too, MOS rule for music genres equally applicable to art movements (genres), per lists, "Music genre articles should not contain lists of performers. A separate list page may be created." Acousmana 17:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If potential future listcreep is a problem, put a <!-- DO NOT ADD ARTISTS UNLESS THEY HAVE ARTICLES! --> warning at the top and watchlist it. If you don't like the word "notable" in an article heading, change it. If some of the linked artists fail WP:ARTIST, flag 'em for deletion. I don't know the rationale behind the music genres MOS, but it doesn't necessarily map to a niche art genre. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And good idea, will take this to the talk page. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Acousmana! I noticed that you recently sent several contemporary artist's articles to AfD, but it seems like you did not conduct a WP:BEFORE search beforehand. I've been working in the area of visual art and AfD for several years, and so your nominations kind of jumped out, and I wanted to reach out and say hello and offer a friendly suggestion.

The criteria that is normally used to evaluate notability of visual artists can be found here: WP:NARTIST, and of course the General Notability Guideline. The section linked above on Before Nominating Articles for Deletion, is a key guideline. There are also alternatives to deletion, such as cleaning up and improving the article, adding an appropriate maintenance tag, redirecting or merging.

If an unfamiliar artist's article has been brought up for deletion, usually the first thing I do is search whether their work is in the permanent collections of notable galleries or museums; then I look for reviews, book citations and articles on them; then I look for exhibitions or public artworks. Of course junk, spam or promo should not be kept, and I appreciate that you have been looking out for that. Netherzone (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone thanks for your input, noted. You might want to look at "post-internet" and check that the "notable" artists listed (personally I don't believe we should have such lists on articles covering styles/genres etc.) are widely cited in RS as: a) post-internet artists; b) notable post-internet artists. From my understanding, many are new media/net artists that have been lumped into the sub-category "post-internet" for the purposes of having a "notable artist" list at the bottom of the article. Acousmana 19:02, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter what genre or category, the point I was trying to make is to please conduct a WP:BEFORE prior to making a deletion nomination. Netherzone (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone Thanks for making the point! Perhaps I'll do that. Acousmana 19:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Amalia Ulman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplicity.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Acousmana, when you add new content to an article it is presumed to have consensus until it is challenged. Once challenged per ONUS it is up to you as the supporter of the content to get consensus for inclusion. I've started the talk page discussion. Please self revert and continue the discussion there. Thanks, Springee (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

nonsense, your objection amounts to nothing more than dislike, it's a common theme. Acousmana 15:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that you didn't have consensus which is policy. Springee (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this comment [5] violates WP:FOC. Springee (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tedious. Acousmana 19:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly stop messing around with my comments on this talk page. You first deleted my comment entirely, which had to be rescued by another editor, and then you moved it and changed the formatting. It isn’t your job to be fiddling about with other people’s comments on a talk page, and deleting them is a serious transgression of WP rules. MapReader (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MapReader aw, gee, thanks, but kindly AGF. There was an edit conflict during that window of content changes, zero to do with me intentionally removing your comment, was correcting chronology due to said conflict, accident, nothing more. Please mind your tone here in future. Acousmana 10:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wanted to advise you that if you visit the page of Pierre Evald , who has conducted years of research on Rajneesh early life, including meeting his relatives and actually visiting Gadawara Public Library and has photographed the actual library register of Rajneesh’s book reading list in the 1950’s, it is confirmed that he read almost the whole contexts of the library. Check out : https://www.pierreevald.dk/

Also, : https://www.pierreevald.dk/osho_files/Osho%20Lao%20Tzu%202004/Osho%202004.pdf Jewelthief5000 (talk) 14:33, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you able to clarify your edit. The Resident Advisor page has no references for the website being launched in October 2001 and it's wrong. I used primary sources when I corrected this because the information isn't mentioned in any secondary sources (nor is the October 2001 date).

As I mentioned on the talk page, they have changed the language around when the site was formed several times, but the post on their website announcing the website's launch seems like a fair use of a primary source because it gives a specific date.

I backed up some of the information you reverted with a secondary source where the founders discussed the early days of the website, and I felt it was relevant to expand on how the website had moved from Australia to England and Germany.

I'd like to correct this, and bring back some of what I wrote. In the meantime I'll look for further sources too.--Jimmyjrg (talk) 10:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's pretty straight forward, we can't editorialize around primary content, structuring a narrative around a post on a website is simply not sufficient. If the primary source made a clear statement on the matter that's one thing, you insinuating something is another, it's WP:OR. Acousmana 10:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I'm not sure how I was insinuating something though. Everything I wrote was backed up as far as I could see. I directly linked to their announcement of the launch, and also linked to a previous post on the site to show the site had been live months before its official launch. Is that what you mean by structuring a narrative? I can just leave out the reference to the site being live prior to its official launch, but it seemed relevant.

Also, all the information about the founders moving overseas to run RA was sourced from the Guardian article and another interview I referenced. I didn't think there was any issue with that. --Jimmyjrg (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the additional sources were not in your initial edit, you have since added references, good job. Acousmana 12:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Acousmana! Hope you're having a good day. I saw you just flagged Saatchi Art for deletion on notability/promotional grounds. I do believe Saatchi Art has a rather significant notability amongst international Art galleries, even though the article itself does really not fit in within our neutrality purposes, and its edit history is questionable. Do you think improving it with good, reliable sources, and also making it not look like a stub could prevent its deletion? I believe English Wikipedia lacks a lot of reliability when it comes to art galleries and I've been trying to fix those issues as to translate them to my main project (Portuguese WP) so as to avoid a gap in knowledge, which is what seems to be going on when most of the articles are promotional. Thank you a lot! Mesocarpo (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

deletion is not a given, depends on consensus, but if improvements can be made, great, the more WP:SECONDARY sources added the better. Acousmana 13:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from baselessly accusing me of having a COI with the Zuby article. Please assume good faith.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your comment on Philip Ewell. Ewell is not notable, especially considering that very important 20th-century theorists are missing.24.184.26.105 (talk) 04:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i have said nothing on the inclusion of Ewell, but his entry is, arguably, valid. Acousmana 12:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimately wondering if you've ever heard music by Rustie or Hudson Mohawke. Can't understand your irrational demand to include them on the basis of one article loosely comparing their sound among various other acts. They simply don't and didn't make anything that has been classified as hyperpop by any reputable source. Kkollaps (talk) 17:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

laughable, we've seen this before, changing your username hasn't helped, you were presented with evidence you dismissed it, were given more evidence, was also ignored - so you could tendentiously push your POV - same ole same ole, like your asinine "techno doesn't use a four to the floor beat," remember that one? Your ignorance is tedious. Acousmana 18:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The username obviously wasn’t changed as a disguise, or else I’d not have kept it similar with the variation on “collapse”—I just thought the original sounded corny. Plenty of techno doesnt have a four-on-the-floor kick (EDIT: see below, or the many Reddit pages like this one), which again leads me to believe you're not especially familiar with the music. You obviously have no further support for this hyperpop claim beyond the Independent piece, which isn’t saying what you want it to say, and the bunch of AG Cook quotes discussing a whole swathe of influences who wouldn’t belong in the lead, except that you seem hell-bent on decentering PC Music from the narrative. Again, I ask you: have you heard HudMo and Rustie? Are you actually familiar with their sound, and its distinction from the auto-tuned avant-pop sound we’re talking about here? Kkollaps (talk) 00:19, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there is no "hell bent," so please, AGF, but there are WP:RS, they were presented, you chose to ignore them, nothing more to add. Acousmana 10:45, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, all your reliable sources unfortunately fall into the two categories I described above (1 Independent article or broad description of eclectic influences with no special emphasis placed on Hudmo/Rustie). Find me a second article saying that Hudmo/Rustie were originators of the hyperpop style and this debate will be settled! :) Kkollaps (talk) 12:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still ignoring, sources & sources. Acousmana 13:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just control+F’ed “Hud” and then “Rustie” on those pages, and every mention beyond the Independent article describes them as an influence or "mash-up" element. Legitimately can’t understand the disconnect in your perception here. Kkollaps (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll read your next publication on the matter: "Who put the OOP, in HYPERPOOP". Acousmana 13:37, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, while I have you, I'm very curious as to what you'd label these tracks, seeing as they can't possibly be techno given their departure from 4-on-the-floor. (Sorry MixMag, I guess you're no authority on techno after all!)

• Carl Craig - "Landcruising" OR "Dreamland" OR "One Day Soon"
• Luke Slater - "Origin"
• Model 500 (aka Juan Atkins) - "The Flow" OR "Last Transport"
• Aphex Twin - "Xtal" OR "Isopropanol" OR "Analogue Bubblebath"
• Move D - "Tribute to Mr Fingers"
• Autechre - "Bike" OR "Egg"
• LFO - "Simon from Sydney"
• Plastikman (aka Richie Hawtin) - "Gak"
• The Black Dog - "Tactile"
• Basic Channel - "Lyot"
• Orbital - "Belfast" OR "Chimes"

Let me know! :) Kkollaps (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is good, demonstrates the issue with your approach to editing Wikipedia, an editor more interested in presenting WP:OR as fact' than using WP:RS to inform editing choices. You keep repeating this mistake.

Another pointless debate about techno, it's origins, musicological definitions etc.? No thank you. Would really love to offer my credentials here, just to close this down, but that would be really sad.

Are there records associated with artists who have produced what people call techno - and which fan discourse insists is techno - that lack kicks on 1/4 notes? Yup. Does 98% of the music produced in the last 35 - that has been called techno - have kicks on 1/4 notes? Yup. Do WP:RS present techno as a style that uses kicks on 1/4 notes? Yup. If you have good sources, reliably published sources, that state the contrary, open a discussion on the relevant talk page, but remember WP:NOTFORUM.

We have guidelines, you don't like following them, it's that simple. Acousmana 10:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're no less selective than I am, except in these two matters you’re insisting on historical inaccuracies and I’m not. Kkollaps (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about being right, you still don't get it, according to you the WP:RS sources we are using are wrong. Nothing more to it. Listen, when you have a published text on the topic, I'll read it, until then please don't harp, it's futile. Acousmana 13:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, YOU bring up the techno thing all over again, then bemoan me re-litigating the point? The fact is you’ve obscured the reality of the genre—extremely iconic tracks and albums in the style don’t conform to your foregrounded first-sentence-of-lead definition—and when forced to admit your shortsideness, you abscond responsibility and defer to a bunch of aloof academic encyclopedia sources whose definition you’ve admitted is not quite accurate! Editorial discretion is a real thing, and if a bunch of sources say a thing that is easily contradicted by other reliable sources, one would expect some thoughtful editorial response to that, like de-emphasis of a possibly narrow description. The simple fact is that the 4/floor pattern does not define techno the same way it defines house or disco, it’s simply a common feature among others. And I would love to hear those credentials! Kkollaps (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don’t try to present yourself as an objective, detached editor, your own talk page is a testament to your contentious editing, and I’ve seen you forced to walk back plenty of edits after other editors pushed back on your weird undue emphases. Kkollaps (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I get it, it’s about presenting admittedly misleading Wikipedia definitions of things because "uhh.. policy." Kkollaps (talk) 13:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good stuff, glad that you are getting your contempt for Wikipedia's editing guidelines off your chest. Looking forward to your forthcoming "What Techno Isn't (It Isn't what It Isn't)" publication, let me know if you need any input. Acousmana 13:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much thanks to your selective retreat into “guidelines” for taking us home! Kkollaps (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Address the sources rather than editor presenting them, you consistenly avoid doing so, that's telling. Acousmana 13:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have, of course, explicitly addressed (even helpfully categorized!) your sources in the hyperpop row, and presented sources offering clear contradiction of your narrow techno description, but no matter. Perhaps worth capping things off with this favorite guideline of mine, on undue weight and the ambiguity of determining article emphasis based on source corroboration! Especially this deathless line: "Common sense is required to determine what sources to use; this guideline cannot be applied robotically." Kkollaps (talk) 13:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

again, let me reiterate, the sources supply the definition, not Wikipedia editors, the quality of the sourcing actually counts for something, what counts for nothing is POV. Acousmana 14:01, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Acousmana! Just to clarify, web pages and eBooks don't need page numbers. With eBooks the URL (and date accessed) is sufficient, while with eBooks we would normally include the location - typically as a chapter number and/or heading, although if the eBook is published in PDF format or something else with fixed pagination than page numbers come back into play. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]