User talk:Shadowking/Archive 2

Removal of Neoclassical Dark Wave Source (Kohanov Definition)

Hi Frederic. As far as I can see, there are two distinct usages for the term 'neoclassical'. In the first case, there is the neoclassical style in classical music. This is a style of music that you find in the later Igor Stravinsky, Paul Hindemith, Ernest Bloch, John Corigliano, and various other 20th Century classical composers. The second usage of the term neoclassical is as referred to in Linda Kohanov's definition.[1] Even though her definition is meant to apply to a subgenre of New Age music (Neoclassical New Age), it can also apply to Dark Wave Neoclassical. Academic Neoclassical music pertains to the first usage of the word. Non-academic neoclassical pertains to the second usage, and that is what Kohanov is clearly referring to. Look at the albums below her definition; these are not academic neoclassical albums, they are all New Age Neoclassical. Her definition can refer to either new age neoclassical or dark wave neoclassical. Kohanov is not referring to academic neoclassical. Thank you. Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The Kohanov definition may be applied to any form of neoclassical contemporary music, whether it be neoclassical new age, neoclassical dark wave, or neoclassical ambient. Take the reference out if you wish, but you have left the definition itself in, so that is now technically speaking plagiarism, because I have quoted Kohanov verbatim. If you remove the entire quote, please be sure render the remaining text readable and understandable. It is quite clear that the contemporary neoclassical style which is used in dark wave and ambient as well as in new age, originated with new age music back in the mid-1970's. This has been carefully made clear in the article itself. Neoclassical dark wave did not just spring up by itself. Thanks. Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 15:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but it's not that clear for me that neoclassical darkwave originated with New Age. Look, I know you don't particularly like gothic music and darkwave, and you would rather see neoclassical darkwave as not being associated in any way with them, but the thing is NC darkwave descends from Darkwave, which descends from goth rock, which descends from Post-punk.

Oh, and I also disagree with the use of 'contemporary classical' as a synonymous to neo-classical darkwave. No matter what the source may say, this is a misconception to use this term here.

Please rearrange the article and take out what you don't agree with; that would be fine with me. I am just grateful that someone besides myself has taken an interest in it. I'm sure you have much to contribute and can correct me where I am wrong. Thanks again. Daniel Grünfeld (talk) 19:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

On Thorns I Lay

Hi - when an article doesn't have any references from reliable sources, it is often down to the admin to decide whether it is notable or not. I decided it probably was; the previous admin that it probably wasn't. You'll need to add sources to the article (it doesn't matter if they're not in English) if it is not to be nominated for deletion again, though. Thanks, Black Kite 12:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

• Hi - sorry, I was looking at the old version. Yes, those references look fine. Black Kite 13:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Please do not in future infer that I am making threats when I am not doing anything of the sort. Asking people to stop vandalising a page by saying "leave it" is not a threat. A threat is "a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc.,". Prophaniti (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Look, I can understand you are a bit irritated by my edit but I also find your injunctive tone a bit irritating. I'm ready to discuss and find agreement with you. But please refrain making injunctions with me, because I don't consider you as an authority that can command me, but just as an honnest user like me.

I have no problem with the fact you try to prevent vandalism. I'm perfectly ok with that. But when a disclamer threatens anyone who edit this part of being blocked, I can't help but taking it as " a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment", that is to say a threat. Beside it also could be regarded as a dubbious attempt of owning the article by trying to intimidate people who try to edit.

Moreover considering you put this disclaimer just after reverting my edit, I can't help but regarding it as a threat agaisnt me as if you implied I'm a vandal. Perhaps you never implied that. But that's the way your edit and your message sound: It sounds like you implied people that edit this part are vandals. Which is fallacious, excessive and offending. Come on, it's not like I tried to trash the article. Sorry but before assuming I'm a vandal, please consider the rules concerning "assuming good faith". I never ever intended to vandalize this page. I really edited this page out of good faith after checking both Rockdetector and Metal guide. Ok I missed the metal rough guide source, my mistake. That's why I leave it this time. But I will also check it, when I'll put a hand on it. If it is explicitely said the band plays gothic rock, then there will be no problem. Otherwise, I don't see why I should be called a vandal just because I correct a mistake.

Anyway If you have problems with vandals, there are rules already defined in wikipedia's policy. Just apply the rules and deal individually with vandals on their talk page, but please refrain using threat-like disclaimers within the article. Because it really sounds like an attempt meant to scare people who disagree with you, plus it appears like a attempt of owning the article. I'm not necessarilly implying this is your intention, but it sounds like.Frédérick Duhautpas (talk) 14:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If the disclaimer you're talking about is the warning hidden in the genre box telling people not to change it, I didn't add that. If that's part of why you felt it was threatening, well I'm not responsible for it.

All I did was leave a "Leave it" warning in the edit summary, and that itself is simply because these sort of genre edits get undone and such over and over again by people who will refuse to accept things. That's not to say you're one such person: simply that I've found it best to be firm. I'm not claiming ownership of the article: simply that that particular piece of information is sourced and so shouldn't be removed. Prophaniti (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. If I had written that warning thing, then it would indeed come off as threatening. I'm not sure who put it there, but I'm not in favour of it. If someone's going to change the genre, something like that tends not to put people off. Prophaniti (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Change

Done. You've made a lot of edits, especially to talk pages, so it would be very long and tedious to change your name. WP:AWB might help though; you might be able to contact someone with it who can help you. bibliomaniac15 19:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Differentiation of hard rock and heavy metal

I have noticed that an IP has removed the paragraph Differentiation from heavy metal from the Hard rock article and it has not been restored so far, probably because it was totally OR and worded too informally, and tagged as such. However, the subject is obviously of continuing interest to people, so I would like to ask you if you could, when and if you have time, whip up a more robust replacement, using the books about heavy metal you have, for example. Florian Blaschke (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Traditional Heavy metal

I fixed what I could see initially but I may come around for a lookover or a real (what they say is a) copyedit. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Black Sabbath

Hi, please could you stop edit warring on the BS article. Please read WP:EDITWAR and WP:3RR. If you continue to edit war: Page protection and/or blocks may be issued. I will also warn Wiki Libs. Also, Theintreprid appeared out of nowhere to support you; while it's been confirmed that neither of you are socks, I would appreciate if you did not ask him to support you in content disputes. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning but I'm already aware of the 3RR and if you check the diffs, you'll notice I didn't engage myself into any edit war recently. I didn't even revert it twice recently. Reverting once is not what I call an "edit war".

It's been more than 3 years that I've been contributing to wikipedia and I never engaged myself into any edit war. I always played by the rules.

Besides I didn't ask anyone to help me in this dispute, I don't even know who this theintrepid is and if you believe otherwise just check his talk page and my page. And you'll see I didn't ask anything to him. So I find it excessive to be accused of this when I just didn't do it and don't plan to.

So I find it weird and unfair to be reprimended without having done anything wrong with respect to Wikipedia rules. I feel I am judged even before having done anything.

Please juge me on my acts, not on what you suppose my intentions are. After all assuming good faith is one of the rules of wikipedia as far as I know.

btw, I don't think it's hard for any native to see how my english sucks. So I find it weird that one could think I am a sockpuppet with this person. This guy seems to speak english fluently. No need to use the check user to see that. Anyway, I'm glad you did it. This proves my innocence. Fred D.Hunter (talk) 14:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Type O Negative

I have (at least temporarily) reverted your edit stating that Type O Negative no longer exists. Can you provide the exact quote? Jason Quinn (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)