User talk:Milomedes

Welcome!

Hello, Milomedes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome! -- Longhair | Talk 04:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

This user believes that spoiler tags are a valuable service and do not censor information.

Talk: List of Groups referred to as Cults

Thank you for emerging as the voice of reason on the discussion page. I would like to complement you on a very sensible proposal. cairoi 14:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's always nice to have one's efforts appreciated. • It's an intellectual and social challenge to comment the talk page, which is where the real action is. As I think you mentioned to another editor, it's a tough crowd, and I wouldn't be surprised if no more than a tiny useful change results from our collective effort. :) Milo 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I just logged in and saw the barnstar. Very kind of you. cairoi 06:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Milomedes, I want to offer a belated apology for the way I reacted to you awhile back (on Cult I believe). It was not how I want to behave. Tanaats 17:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the need, I accept, but I felt ok with how we parted. I'm also comfortable with the centrist cult-topics edits you've made so far.

As caroi told me when I arrived, this is a tough crowd. And, I would add, not for those who are thin-skinned.

I think contemplation of the ancient Eastern philosopies of balance are useful and appropriate here. Acting in full accordance with them though... well, maybe I'll do better in my next karmic cycle as a cookie recipe editor. :) Milo 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cult topic centrism

I personally define cult topic centrism as:

1) Editing from Principle, hopefully resulting in consensed rules;

2) educating global citizens' unfounded biases (95%+ of cults are good enough);

3) being reality-based pro-reporting for global citizens (cults do exist, citizens want reporters to document cult vs. citizen social problems, and citizens mandate governments to watch cults for infractions — to prevent infractions from progressing to crimes. (See unofficial translation of the Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France (French Report), 1995);

4) practicing proportional critique toward cult-referenced groups on a legal entanglements continuum, ranging from:

A) mere competitive dislike by major religions,

B) to annoying but legal door-step fundamentalists,

C) to legally infractious group actions like mass begging,

D) to undue influence, financial, and sexual abusers,

E) to non-violent felons,

F) to the 10-some infamous destructive cult disasters.

Milo 09:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC), 04:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wisdom shown should always be rewarded

The Wiki Wiffle Bat

Milo, I award you this barnstar for going where no man or woman dared to go:

List of groups referred to as cults in government reports#POV - section.

Thank you, for your kind/wise well thought out words and the spunk to state them! Wikipedia can be most rewarding when someone reminds us to be respectful while discussing the points. PEACE TalkAbout 02:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wow, thanks, TalkAbout. That's really nice of you to post this Wiki Wiffle Bat template. I'll treasure it. :) Milo 03:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice and/or consensus about "New Thought Music"

Hi Milo - A link to "New Thought Music" appeared today in the New Age music see also section. After some research I removed that link, and explained my reasons here: Talk:New Age music#reasons for removing unrelated "See Also" link New Thought Music. I'm writing to you about it now though because I think the "New Thought Music" article itself is misleading. There is no genre with that name anywhere in generally accepted musicology and it fails WP:MUSIC and WP:Notability. I'm wondering whether or not to propose removing that article from the music genre category and merging the text into the main article about the New Thought Movement where it would be more approriate, as it's the message not the music that makes it what it is.

The website NewThoughtMusic.com [1] includes this statement:

The purpose of the NewThoughtMusic.com site is two fold:
To support the growth of music ministry in our communities

To promote the best of New Thought Music as an outreach function

That's the same website that I quoted on the New Age music talkpage:

Since it is this universal spiritual philosophy that is the common thread, virtually any style of music could be construed as New Thought. What is important is the intention encoded into the music, not the stylistic form itself. So, it is possible for us to find examples of "New Thought Music" in folk, jazz, classical and even in existing popular repertoire (Stevie Wonder, Sly Stone, James Taylor and many others).

Here is another website promoting this idea: [2] where they state:

Help shine the light of New Thought music to the world by experiencing the transformation this music can bring first-hand. Support New Thought artists by purchasing their music. Offer one of our Tribute CD’s to a friend or family member not familiar with this music. The Tribute CD’s provide a variety of artists and musical styles, and each song has a positive spiritual message for all faiths.
Visit the Itoi Ministries website www.itoimusic.org for more information on the New Thought Songwriters Tribute and the PosiPalooza! Concert Tour and help us change the world, one song at a time!

I thought you would be interested in this both regarding the musicology aspects and also regarding your work with the list of cults articles. I'm not saying these related groups are cults, though they might be seen that way, and even if they are, I don't have anything against cults in general as a principle unless they behave badly. The topic of music genres is already complex and we don't need a non-existent genre confusing the topic even more. The thing that's bothering me here is the claim of this as a genre while at the same time saying this form of music crosses all genres, as long as it includes their spiritual message. A positive spiritual message is fine with me, but the article seems to create extra confusion in the musical genres which is what I want to clear up.

What do you think about this? Would it be best to ignore the whole thing? Or work on merging that stub into its main religious movement article and out of the music genre category? I don't have an agenda on this in particular other than that WP music genre articles should be about music and not about religion (just as Gospel genre articles focus on the music, not the religion). I'm not sure whether to, or how to, proceed on this, so I'm hoping you can offer some clarity. Thanks for your help... Parzival418 06:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too much material here for me to deal with definitively — maybe you also.

The idea which floated to the top is, have you listened to several of these promoted artists to hear what they might have in genre common? For example, if they are mostly chanters, then they might be able to hold together a genre in a way analogous to rap.

The more cynical view is that genre is as genre sells. What is the industry buzz, if any?

I read WP:MUSIC and searched for the word "genre". It refers to "notable genre", but doesn't define it, so I think you should re-edit your post and strike-type that guide. It may be a lot of work to validly research WP:Notability for a genre. Without that research, I don't think you are in a position to decide on a merge proposal. Then you'd need to communicate a lot with the current editors. They might invoke philosophy that would take even more time to learn, to reasonably decide whether it was applicable.

On balance, I personally would ignore it.

I'm not sure whether the New Age music article can justify a New Thought music link, given that New Thought music depends on "intention", which may be lyrics, while New Age is almost totally instrumental. Obviously, some New Age instrumental 'intends' to promote New Age spirituality, so that could be why the link was added. Possibly an important factor is that the two philosophies (according to the New Thought article) barely cross over. Milo 08:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I've taken your advice and re-edited the talk page to remove WP:MUSIC. I didn't use strike edit because I changed the rest of the sentence and the result looked confusing. I did however make note of the re-edit in my second signature there on the talk page.

Yes, I have listened to a bunch of songs I found on those websites and no, they do not hold together stylistically - only the lyrics as far as I can tell give it any identity. As far as industry buzz - I did look for that and was unable to find any references at all in any industry publications. There are one or two artists that the New Thought websites claim have been noted in the industry, but they don't provide references. It seems those may be country or gospel artists, perhaps noted within those established genres, who happen have some positive lyrics and are part of a New Thought congreation. But from the music industry POV, they are not considered "New Thought" artists because there's no such genre outside of the New Thought Movement ministries, at least not that I could find.

I'll go with your suggestion to ignore the article. Thanks again... Parzival418 09:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(reset) Here's a nice development - The IP editor who had placed that link accepted the comments and removed the music-genre-stub template from his article, diff. I think his article does have a place in the music category, now that it's not trying to be a genre. It's good to see positive consensus in action... Parzival418 23:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for the diff link on the talk page of LOGRTACIGR. That was thoughtful of you. Smee 03:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Talk:Post-Ambient

(Copied from User:CambridgeBayWeather - Archive of Post-Ambient talk at Ambient?)

You deleted Post-Ambient with the following edit summary "08:02, 24 April 2007 CambridgeBayWeather (Talk | contribs) deleted "Post-Ambient" (PRod:No references or sources... No real content... not notable... no consensus to keep...)".
I have no significant disagreement with your summary. One user wanted to do research for sources, as he said the Post-Ambient concept was under discussion within the related music community. He can still do that research while the article is deleted. However, I think it's useful to archive that article's talk page whether or not the article or concept gets revived.
As an admin I think you have acccess to the deleted material. I suggest that the Post-Ambient talk page should be archived as a subpage at Ambient, and I would (boldly) do this if I had access. (Please reply here if desired) Milo 16:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the talk page. Because the whole thing was deleted under WP:PROD it can be restored if anybody asks any admin so if you need that back then no problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User:CambridgeBayWeather - Archive of Post-Ambient talk at Ambient?)

Ok, thanks for undeleting only Talk:Post-Ambient. I didn't know that the useful talk page could be undeleted separately from the unencyclopedic article. Milo 00:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem and as it says at Wikipedia:Proposed deletion#Contesting after deletion "Articles deleted under this procedure (using the {{prod}} tag) may be undeleted, without further discussion, on a reasonable request." So if the rest of the article is needed let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yo yo yo

Hey Milo. Just from watching your stuff on the list thing, you seem to be pretty level-headed. I would kinda like to see you pitch in in the Great Commission Association article if you're interested. Gatorgalen 13:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How kind of you to say so. A couple of days ago I might have said yes, but real world issues are pressing me. I'll be lucky if I can occasionally dip into my regular edits. Milo 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solidarity

There's been talk about the coordination and co-operation of the anti-spoiler side. That may be an exaggeration, but it's painfully clear that we can shout into the woods all we want without getting anywhere without laid-out goals and viable alternatives to the present spoiler policy, not just criticisms of it, however justified they may be. I'm open to suggestions, and feel free to reply to any that other people make on my talk page.

In the meantime, here's a symbol. Please keep it on your talk page, or even put it on your user page should you get one; if we get it on enough pages, it might just count for something. Please remove it if you don't want to show it. And if you've got a better picture, be my guest and use it. --Kizor 16:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I never thought I'd have a userbox. I'll move this one up to this talk page top where it fits nicely to the right of the Contents box. Milo 18:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Milo... what do you think of this: [3] and this: [4] ?

Good point I hadn't thought of that. Milo 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, plain text spoiler notices are better since they don't advertise their presence for editors not involved in an article. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did think of that in the inverse — they are against plain text because they want central control. Milo 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up On second thought, I've decided to disengage over there. The positions there are too entrenched, it's not a real discussion where people are listening to each other, it's territorial. Take a look if you want, but I'm not going to continue arguing the point, because, well... what's the point to that? And by the way, at least one of the editors on that topic is watching your page and posted a link to this section. I assume my page is on watch as well now, since I've been fairly vocal on that discussion for a few days and edited the guideline page a few times. I truly don't understand why some people dislike the spoiler notices so much, something that seems to be a simple and non-disruptive service to readers. But I'm not going to make it a "cause", I'm winding down my involvement with that topic. Have a good day.... --Parzival418 _Hello 19:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The debate seems to be winding down with none of the big issues resolved. It appears not to have been worth my effort. I think I need to spend a lot less time editing. Milo 08:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean, I'm disappointed with the process too and considering reducing my editing as well. It was a downer seeing that stuff happening on a guideline page that's not just a regular article but will affect so many other editors.

I hope you stick around though even if you're editing less -- I'm just about ready with a new spacemusic article that has lots more references and plan to post it soon. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting the "spoiler" definition in a dictionary I don't routinely use. That nicely nailed down an annoying loose end in my spoiler tag philosophy, and I have made reference to it in a post. Milo 02:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, the whole spoiler tag issue is one where I think the underlying issue was not important to the pro-spoiler people as much as it was them proving their manliness by bullying other editors into submitting to their edits that have, on the whole, made Wikipedia a worse internet resource. Samboy 23:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Space music

Spacemusic RfC position

Hi. Could you update your position on Talk:Space music#Request for Comments? I want to make sure your view is accurately represented. Thank you. —Viriditas | Talk 00:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, will do.

Spacemusic genre distinguished in 100 words

"Almost any music having a slow pace and space-creating sound images could be called spacemusic". Spacemusic was named in 1973 by Hill and Turner on "Hearts of Space" radio. USA spacemusic is defined by the contemplative uplifting HoS segue formula, avoiding depressive, spooky, atonal, or noisy "dark music". Spacemusic genre intends for foreground contemplation, especially with headphones. Spacemusic is not a type of ambient music, but both genres share many compositions. Eno's 1978 album defined background music named ambient. When sound images are faint, spacemusic becomes indistinguishable from background melodic ambient, but much ambient is not foreground imagery contemplative.

Milo 01:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good source for, "Almost any music having a slow pace and space-creating sound images could be called spacemusic"? —Viriditas | Talk 09:25, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's from the second half of footnote 1 in the Space music article. The source is Hearts of Space website: "What is spacemusic?" http://hos.com/aboutmusic.html Milo 23:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. We should add that to the article. —Viriditas | Talk 02:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article updated

Hi Milo, when you have a chance, please take a look at these links:

Thanks... --Parzival418 _Hello 00:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again... I had included the fusion section of your version of the article in my update listed above. But I had to add an unreferenced section tag to it since there are no references. After considering further, I decided to remove that section since it's the only part of the article that didn't have references. Here is the new link:

update without fusion section

I like that section and want to include it, but we need to find some references first or it will get deleted anyway. You're welcome to add it back in if you want, I just didn't want the lack of references in that section to be a source of difficulty with the rest of the article at this point. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Tesh

I'm not familiar with his music, but I did get a chance to meet him and his family about three years ago when he was here in Hawaii. He's one of the nicest, most polite people I've ever met. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments invited

Hi Milo - I saw your edit summary on Space music about moving the list to follow the references about the relaxing genre and atmospherics but the edit seemed not to "take" and just looked like a null edit. I think there might have been an edit conflict glitch since I was editing the history section at the same time - maybe it would be good if you review your edit in case it needs to be re-applied. I thought of putting the list there myself but could quite make the wording work clearly which is why I put it where I did. I think you have a good idea on that though.

I replied to various comments on Viriditas' page and the SpM talk page too. I'm getting ready to sign off for the night, have a good one... --Parzival418 _Hello 09:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was a Dummy edit. It's just a way of communicating via the edit summary.

Yes, it will take some thought to make such a long sentence flow with the genres toward the end — em dashes can sometimes fix such sentences.

You've done a lot of good work - certainly more than I can do with real world time pressing.

Your selection of the (Hubble?) space photo brought the article to life. Thank you :)

It would be nice to find a way to connect the photo of the tensegrity tower as a second example of space-on-earth and ideally with a reference to visualized space music. As I understand Hill's architectural thinking, he typically looks for musics which sonically model precision placement of identical-repeating modular components. One way to approach this would be to search for well-described music-structure complaints about repeating-element New Age/Space music from non-fans. Milo 11:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments about my work. I think I need to slow down on the editing too, likewise for real world time pressures.

Yes, the photo is from Hubble, but also a composite of others. Here's the full description from the Commons page:

Messier 82. Composite of Chandra, HST and Spitzer images. X-ray data recorded by Chandra appears in blue; infrared light recorded by Spitzer appears in red; Hubble's observations of hydrogen emission appear in orange, and the bluest visible light appears in yellow-green.

If you have the time, check out the full resolution image, it's truly amazing. One click gives you a screen size image, then there's another link to a huge one that you can scroll around inside.

The tensegrity tower would be a good image too. That tensegrity article you linked to a while ago was very interesting. Viriditas pointed out that we need to caption images to show clear relevance or the image may be removed. Good idea to search "complaints from non-fans" to find the descriptions, that's funny that what the non-fans don't like is part of what makes the spacemusic work so well. I'd like to help with that but I won't have time for a while.

I did figure out a way to change the sentence to move the genres to the end. I think I got the meaning to work in the way you suggested. Please check it out when you have a chance. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You have new messages (last change)"

Hi Milo - I see you've been busy on Spoiler Alerts, (wow, what a discussion that's been, eh?!)... I've been mostly helping out with WQA lately, that's been quite an education about how people and policy get along together. The WQA page is more lively and effective lately with the new organization and there are several other editors helping out which is cool. They started on the "pay it forward" idea after I modified the instructions and some seemed to like it and continued to help. It's good to see those alerts not just going fallow so much, though there are still too many to keep up with.

Anyway, I wanted to check in with you since you didn't reply about the new laughingsocks last week. I think gp is on holiday, and I have not been editing SpM since the prior notes (I think it's good now, though I don't make any assumptions about smooth sailing in the future ). Viriditas wrote that he was going to make some improvements but I haven't seen any changes there lately. I did add a proposed info-box on the talk page - do you think that's a plus for the article, or better without it since it's really made for more formal "genres"? Drop me a note if you like. Oh, and I changed my user name to get rid of those pesky numbers that people so often got wrong... Best Wishes... --Parsifal _Hello 06:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way, your post tonight at Taxonomy of the spoiler debate was right on, well done.

On a related topic, you may want to check out the archiving bots post at the Village pump --Parsifal _Hello 07:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"your post tonight at Taxonomy of the spoiler debate was right on, well done" Thanks, It did seem a lot like a well-glued summary piece. I'm way busy in real life, but I can almost do talk:spoiler on autopilot, and no one will notice (or care) when I stop posting.

I did look at the SpM infobox, didn't notice anything objectionable, but it seems like asking for debate trouble since SpM is a collective 'something' with components of up to 30 genres. My present feeling is to go along with what you think best. I have some problem with the top displacement of the space picture by the info box. Surely there is a way to put it under the picture?

You've raised the SpM standards so much that anything more that I could do at SpM will involve heavy research for which I lack the time and other resources.

Also since Viriditas has taken such a hard line on the Notable artists format I'm losing interest. He's wrong on the embedded lists issue, but has been otherwise so helpful that I don't feel like pressing it further.

Note that once again a passing editor contributed to the list (Tomita), as many others have over time, so I know it works as a feature in it's present format.

I haven't been to WQA for a long time, glad things have improved.

Yes, I wondered about your difficult username, I hope I got it correct most of the time :) Milo 07:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting busier in real life too and it's getting harder to find time for WP. The SpM research took longer than I expected. Thanks for your compliment on that, much appreciated.

I agree with you about the Notable Artists section. I noticed the drive-by contribution and feel that those are positive. I'm thinking about ways to keep it and somehow remove the tag. I don't really understand why Viriditas doesn't like that section - though I agree with you that he's been very helpful so it doesn't feel good to push about the list. Somehow though, that information needs to stay in the article, either changing to prose, or adding a chart with albums - both options too much work for me right now.

On the infobox, something was bothering me, which is why I put it on the talk page instead of right into the article. I think you're right that as soon as it goes into the article, it can become a target of edit wars over the individual elements of the infobox. Also, the space picture really works in the lead of the article and if there is an infobox, it will be hard to get agreement that the space picture can stay at the top. I think I will retract that infobox proposal.

Have a good evening or morning, whatever time zone you're in... --Parsifal _Hello 08:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - by coincidence, Viriditas posted a note on my talk page about the infobox last night, after I posted my comment withdrawing the infobox from the SpM talk page, though I don't think he had seen my comment there yet. I've replied to Viriditas about it on my talk page here and hope I expressed it clearly - you are welcome to comment as well if you wish. --Parsifal _Hello 18:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - just wondering, do you still have Viriditas talk page on your watchlist? Not a big deal, but there's some recent activity there.

On a different topic, how about that spoiler talk page? Think that'll still be going on in five years? I bet we have hideable spoiler tags long before then. I like the way IMDB does it - I added a description of their method to IMDB#Plot-related features and spoiler warnings. How fast will the spoiler-search-bot find that edit? --Parsifal _Hello 06:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikivacation?

Milo, just when I am between projects, shucks, missed your sharp wit and funny ways. Say, my condition must be getting better as I got a 4 during the summer. Yes, going back to school to see if I can learn a thing or two. Have a good vacation, catch a wave or two. I am feeling like I need one too. left the .0 out on purpose:-)PEACETalkAbout 08:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your appreciation. Congratulations on your 4!

I eventually became a 4 grad student, but one couldn't have predicted that from my earlier grades. :))

Milo 15:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is all not ambient?

Ref HoS #10 Is All Not One?
HoS #55 Is All Not Two?

MIlo, please take a look at the talk pages of both GP and Viriditas. Check the histories to find the most recent parts of their communications. I haven't responded yet because I've been simply not replying at all to the insults and accusations from GP. But now it looks like some participation in that discussion may be needed, unfortunately. --Parsifal _Hello 18:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the ambient blob is on the ooze again, and appears to have engulfed Viriditas (aieee!) who has now been replaced by an ambient pod person. (hehe, I wonder if there ever was a real GP?)

I see ambient is going to take over not only "space music", but "spacemusic" as well, under the guise of "beatless ambient". While the recent changes in an ambient perception of space music are reasonable to acknowledge, and indeed to divide the article, the revisionism of classifying Spacemusic (classic) as ambient is Orwellian light. It's something like saying that classical was subsumed by electronic as a genre after Carlos' "Switched on Bach".

BTW, I note that this weeks's HoS #815: VIHUELA, a mostly-acoustic Spanish-Moorish pre-guitar flamenco-like soundscape, is anything but beatless.

I did some research on how ambient became a genre-engulfing monster. The root of this macro bogosity seems to be Eno's micro discovery while immobilized in bed that all music is ambient^(threshold) if it is faint enough. I don't know who began to claim without clear limit that some/most/all audible music is also ambient, but commerce is the usual suspect. Given the chutzpah of ambient^(threshold), the 'all is ambient' notion could have stealth evolved from ambient^(beatless) being similar to space music, ambient^(noise) being similar to industrial music, and ambient^(house)... um, dunno, maybe some kind of drugged cross-association with the ambient^(beatless) being played in the chill room.

Even the nominal ambient community seems to be getting tired of 'is all not ambient?'. Here's an Hypnos.com ambient discussion that appears to terminate the credibility of Prendergast's "The Ambient Century":

Poster oenyaw writes: "my problem is that [Prendergast] tries to expand the definition of ambient music to include almost everything. Personally, I don't think I consider Led Zeppelin as ambient."

Poster jbrenholts writes: "pendergrast even included dylan as ambient. whew!"

Poster Scott M2 writes: "Yet not a single mention of Steve Roach or Robert Rich ..."

Poster Bill Binkelman wrote: "There are simply too many types of ambient music nowadays to form a cohesive and even relatively all-inclusive definition. Plus, many fans can't even agree on what constitutes ambient. You have the beat versus non-beat debate, the instrumental versus vocal debate, the acoustic versus electronic debate, and the "it's too pretty or it has nature sounds so it's new age" vs "no, it's just got a melody and or field recordings" debate. Trying to come up with any kind of description of a type of music that inclu[d]es such diverse works as

Soma (ethno-tribal)

Sub Rosa ("classic" ambient)

And the Stars Go With You (spacemusic)

gently down the stream (glitch)

Blood Machine (fractal groove)

Stalker (dark ambient)

china radio sunshine (electronica)

Trans Ukraine (chill out)

Astoria (drone)

Mysticism of Sound (collage/experiemental)

Touch (downtempo vocal)

...well, there ya go. It was a lot easier back in, say, the mid to late 80s (and even then it wasn't easy)."

By analogy I'm reminded of the Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) episode in which they lampooned bad sci-fi writing where ordinary terms were pseudo 'spacified' by merely adding the word "space" to it. Thus a bowl became a "space bowl", even though it was just an ordinary bowl. This in contrast to "space music", a music that has extraordinary psychoacoustic spacial effects.

Ambient has done something similarly lampoonable to an "ambient bowl", for example, by pointlessly attaching its name to dance music which bears not the slightest relationship to Eno's and Satie's genre. (Hm, suppose rave dancers wore an ambient bowl as a dancing hat, maybe the sonic effect would justify the name? :) Milo 03:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, your turn of phrase has given me a good laugh!

It's disappointing that Viriditas has been engulfed, and surprising considering that the engulfement was preceded by so many angry and extremely uncivil comments from GP. Viriditas has 40,000 edits. Hopefully, those edits will attach like antibodies to the references and come to the rescue allowing him to see that the references are not actually part of the ambient blob itself. Well, in other words, that the references mostly don't say that space music is ambient; they say many things and that's only a small part of it.

For your watchlist: a Viriditas sandbox page where they are collaborating.

It seems to me that for this process to work fairly, the link to the sandbox should be presented on the article talk page along with the questions it's supposed to resolve. I assume GP will read this message on your page; but aside from that, I think we should mention to Viriditas that the process should be brought out into the light. Do you agree about that? --Parsifal _Hello 04:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose, but my impression is this is just not going to be fair. One problem is that Mr. 40,000 edits knows less than he thinks he does, and I've noticed that he gets unpleasant when he's challenged. He's had previous community problems with WP:Own charges possibly related to that. That makes him and GP a bad combination.

Already I see they are trying to disqualify quotes as "primary research". There's nothing wrong with quotes from primary sources as long as they are descriptive, meaning any person who visits the sources can verify usage in the article without special knowledge of the subject.

If the primary source says "I sing falsetto", the article needs to read like: 'In a personal letter posted on his web site, Jack Daniels says, "I sing falsetto" ' — and not just 'Jack Daniels sings falsetto', because no journalist has checked facts as to whether known basso Jack was drunk when he wrote that. However, even if Jack was drunk, the descriptive statement remains correct and verifiable that Jack did say that.

Out of courtesy I backed off this issue the last time, but unfortunately, this time I think it's going to be necessary to go the mat. It's just too critical to let him wrongly remove scarce sources.

Doing as you suggest for Space music while hoping for the best, plus something else simultaneously — what do you think about splitting off Spacemusic (classic), in which only old Eno-style ambient need be considered? Milo 06:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and concur with your notes above (though I have a question on the last point about the splitting of the article). I've read the histories of some of the community problems you mentioned. And I agree about the importance of the sparse references and that use of primary sources with appropriate wording is acceptable when necessary. This is such an obscure topic that very few people have ever written about it, though it has enough listeners to have an article. Regarding a split-off article for spacemusic classic; that could be effective, and I'm willing to try it, but I have a couple concerns - that it may end up being more work without solving the problem on the current article, and, that it may make the whole situation more confusing. But maybe I'm not clearly understanding what you're envisioning; would you elaborate a bit further?

Regarding the sandbox page they're working on, there are some entertaining comments by GP there; he seems to feel comfortable making his pronouncements when there's no need for debate, though mostly incorrect, filtered through his POV. What procedure do you recommend? Shall we ask Viriditas to post the sandbox link on the article talk page? Shall we comment on that page as the comments are being entered? Or would you prefer to wait until they present their "masterpiece?" --Parsifal _Hello 08:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"post the sandbox link on the article talk page" If Viriditas wants to work only with someone especially invited at his user page, I'm inclined to respect that arrangement since I'd want the same courtesy.

"comment on that page as the comments are being entered?" Likewise, as a matter of courtesy I think it would be better to observe, quote, and comment on the article talk page. It will also get more publicity on the talk page. That's something of a middle path between being intrusive, yet letting him know before he invests too much work that certain things aren't acceptable.

GP's little essay on removing sources amounts to violation of WP policy on fully describing controversies. It's such blatant POV pushing that one approach would be to quote it in other places where editors might be shocked.

"would you elaborate a bit further?" I notice that among Ultrared's art-writing essays, there were references to the "death of ambient". While that might be gothic hyperbole, I noticed that in the Hypnos.com ambient discussion, oenyaw said he "bought a disc with the word ambient in the title and it turned out to be ele[c]tro-dance music." Obviously he was fooled into buying music he did not want. That's exactly the kind of thing that could kill "ambient" as a marketing label. A name that means everything, means nothing. The problem therefore is to disambiguate the useful name of classic spacemusic from the useless name of new-ambient-is-everymusic.

"may end up being more work without solving the problem on the current article" That may be so. Ambient could take years to be fully discredited and collapse, so it may not be possible to solve the problem on the current article. There may not be any good solution if the music marketing magazines haven't noticed and reported what's happening. At 0.1-0.5% market share, they may not much care. Milo 04:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy. yes, of course, I was suggesting we might ask about posting the link, not just go ahead and do it.

better to observe, quote, and comment on the article talk page. I concur about this. Not sure when/how to begin though. My time is more limited nowadays, so I need to stay focused. I'll debate when needed, but prefer to avoid extra debating when possible. The spoiler project page taught me the futility of that. (Off -topic digression: Wow, what a scene! - hopeless in the short run due to imposed non-consensed enforcement, though I expect the optional-hide/show-by-preference-setting method will happen in the next few years. Every web page will be so easy to personalize, it's hard to imagine that feature being omitted in the long run. And the idea that when something is not new, it can't be spoiled?! --everything is new to someone young enough to just be discovering it, or someone older who's been too busy working...)

Hypnos.com - interesting thread, thanks for the link.

Ultrared - strange source - they seem ultra-collective and political; they don't use author names on any of their articles.

disambiguate the useful name of classic spacemusic - I understand your goal with this, but I wonder how it can be done. Would we have one page titled "Space music (classic)" and another page titled "Space music (ambient blob)"? --Parsifal _Hello 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I found and added to the article a cool quote of Stockhausen actually using the term "space music" to describe his own work; and also that Miles Davis studied Stockhausen's music and some of Miles' work has been called "space music" too. Davis in 1982: "...I listen to Stockhausen and Ravel. " --Parsifal _Hello 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work! :)

I can now see a way out of the ambient is everygenre mess by documenting the history of how that notion came about. The story is found among the pages at Music.hyperreal.org that are already Space music article sources. The useful news is that ambient^(everygenre) is already much further into decay than I had been led to believe by old sources, which I have found a way to date.†

"Would we have one page titled..." "...and another page titled..." Yes. Maybe "Spacemusic (classic)" and "Space music (new ambient/chill)". By Google test { "new ambient" music } has 37,000 hits and { "ambient chill" music } has 220,000 hits. Lloyd Barde's Notes on Ambient Music is also an (older) source on the name "new ambient".†

New ambient^(ravemusics) is so radically different from old ambient^(background) that separated articles are necessary, since they are different stories of different generations. A post-ambient concept is also starting to make some sense in terms of successor fragmentations, but there may be no sources, nor even be discussed in those terms.

The many hits of "ambient" with "chill" tell me that "chill" is a genre name, and will lose ambient (or has already among the in crowd) the way rock lost roll.

Based on the wealth of historic content, logically the current article would be renamed "Spacemusic (classic)" and the new article would take up with the story of Jimmy Cauty and The Orb in 1989, followed by his locally acclaimed album "Space" that apparently started the trouble with ambient genre-takeover of space music.

Cauty's album is evidence of a new path, possibly unrelated to classic HoS spacemusic, as it took place in UK, and out of range of USA public radio's 300-station success of Hearts of Space. It's not obvious that Cauty had ever heard of HoS (though by 1989, more likely than Eno in 1978), but apparently raves with chill rooms were a global phenomenon, certainly in UK as well as USA.

According to Chris Melchior in Ambient Music, Beginnings and Implications, ambient "everything" peaked in 1995, and he quotes a Mike Brown in 1997 who says, "Ambient continues to be a catch-all at the end of the century, although as a genre it has become hopelessly fragmented...".

†According the Internet Archive index page for Barde's Notes on Ambient Music, Barde wrote this analysis prior to April 17, 2001. We are now seven-some years further along, so Ultrared may have been serious; ambient "everything" may well be "dead". Milo 06:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done analysis; I've started reading through those links and there's a lot of interesting information there. I agree the ambient blob needs to perform meiosis; new ambient(ravemusics) & old ambient(background). Regarding the evolution of the ambient blob, there was an intriguing comment in one of those links that I had not thought about before but makes a lot of sense - that in the chill rooms at the raves, they played old ambient(background/environmental), but the rave-techno-house music in the main rooms was so loud that it was heard in the background in the chill rooms, together with the environmental ambient music. That combination created a new kind of music, a blend of the ambient/chill music of spacey ambient backgrounds together with dance-loop beats. Then, when that mix was made in studios, away from the raves and the stimulant-enhanced pulse rate, chillout music evolved like slowed-down rave music mixed with ambient, ie, ambient dub, etc...

I was aware of the ambient component of the chillout music, but this new point is interesting, the thing that makes it chillout music instead of dance music is that the beat is coming from the other room in the distance, and the ambient sounds are more present locally; that changes the "pushy" dance beat to a background pulse as part of the ambient environment.

But how does splitting Ambient (Eno/Satie/Environmental) and Ambient (Enhanced/Chillout/Loud dance music in the other room) apply to space music? Space music in many cases is too "present" to be used in a rave chillout room, because it wouldn't mix well with the drum beats from the other room, and other factors - ie, because spacemusic (classic) is not Ambient (Eno/Satie/Environmental). I've seen, in the sources, and in general current usage, space music almost always used as either Space music (classic), or as Space music (historical), [ie Miles Davis/Grateful Dead/Pink Floyd]. It's possible there are people using Space music to refer to Ambient (Enhanced/Chillout/Loud dance music in the other room), but I haven't seen that anywhere, so it seems like if there was an article on spacemusic (ambient blob), the article would be almost empty. I suppose there could be enough material to make a fork article about spacemusic (electronic). But those seem more like WP:SPINOUT than true disambiguation; in other words, spacemusic as a term and an idea has had an ongoing evolution from Stockhausen, Miles Davis, Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Tangerine Dream, etc... to the 1990's electronic forms, to more recent digital workstation formats, and the addition of other genres to blend the programming, like the native flutes or celtic, as found in the HoS shows.

So, what would be the other side of the disambiguation if spacemusic (classic) separates the HoS-related usage? I've seen it used to refer to spacemusic (electronic) but very rarely seen it used to refer to spacemusic (new ambient/chill); usually if someone refers to that music, they just call it ambient. It's hard to see the need for an article about spacemusic (new ambient/chill), since the ambient music article already covers that topic; it would just be a stub; there are so few references. Another split could be spacemusic (music genre) vs spacemusic (psychoacoustic programming); it still seems unclear though. Other than that there is someone who doesn't like the term space music and edits to absorb it into the ambient blob, I think the article has been working pretty well and aside from Wikipedia issues, does not need to be split. Music genre classifications are challenging as a topic in general, and it seems that on Wikipedia they're extra challenging because people have such strong feelings about those topics.

I'm not averse to disambiguating spacemusic; I'm just having trouble visualizing how it could be split, because one of the forks would be pretty much as the current version is, and the other fork or forks would be almost empty. On the other hand, disambiguation is needed even more on the Ambient music article. That's a bigger job because the people who like Ambient (Enhanced/Chillout/Loud dance music in the other room) also feel some sort of "connection" with Brian Eno's initial naming of Ambient (Eno/Satie/Environmental), and if we try to separate that, more ambient pods will likely be activated. But that's the core of the ambient (everygenre) issue. --Parsifal _Hello 04:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SpM references

Following up your note on my talk page - did you have a chance to read my reply about the SpM references? (and the note about the Ambient Century book?) Just wondering if you're satisfied with the version of the article per GP's change. I notice that his edit caused the middle of the first paragraph to almost completely duplicate the middle of the second paragraph, including the list of references (plus there's the very good Star's End reference that he omitted completely). --Parsifal _Hello 07:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"the note about the Ambient Century book?" (referring to) Parsifal (08:23 3 October 2007): "have you heard of a book called "The Ambient Century" I was puzzled by this since I commented on Hypnos.com discussions of that book in this thread Milo (03:38, 17 September 2007): "... appears to terminate the credibility of Prendergast's "The Ambient Century". Since you have confirmed its lack of connection to space music, I think it should be removed from the "Further reading" section.

I checked and didn't find any misquotation in your Star's End quote, so GP's complaint doesn't make any sense. The "broad range of genres" you reported as consensed by five editors, so that's covered. Not sure if the rest of his complaint about sources has been covered.

I hope this helps. I need to go on wikivacation to deal with urgent things in the real world. Milo 03:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the Ambient Century... duh... I kept thinking the info looked familiar when I read the book, but I forgot that your page is where I saw it before. Too much typing, not enough sleeping I guess! I removed the book from "further reading" per your suggestion.

Thanks for confirming the Star's End quote. Have a good wikibreak. --Parsifal _Hello 04:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the reversions on SpM, who knows what you'll find when you get this note, but tonight GP reverted - in one edit - both your reinstatement of the history info, and, my reinstatement of the stars' end reference (used in 6 places), and the word "broad" re range of genres, in the intro.

I had also added around the same time, the words "psychoacoustic" and "spacey" to the second paragraph, but I did not interchange the paragraphs and restore the "selection of songs" version of the intro as it was in the version from last week. He has so far not reverted the second paragraph changes, but there was an EC so I don't know if he saw them yet.

Then, I re-added the stars' end reference he kept deleting, as a separate edit, so it's clear it's not a content change. I did it separately last time too, but it seems he's just pretty much reverting whatever I add, so who knows if he even noticed that.

I have not yet though, re-added the word "broad" to the intro regarding "broad range of genres", and I've not yet restored the Pythagoras info he removed twice. I'm being careful because although I've been doing only occasional reverts, I've been doing a lot of edits and I don't want anything to be misunderstood. So the current open items are: to re-add the word "broad" & the Greek history info. If you want to do one or both of those, that would be cool. Of course, by the time you see this, things may have changed again.

(The Pythagoras stuff is interesting, there's more in the sources I haven't had time to review in detail.... he ascribed some healing qualities to music too, according to his contemporaries. I have a few more references on that, but my Wikitime has limits. I'll get to them eventuatlly.) --Parsifal _Hello 09:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. take a look at GP's & V's talk pages for recent entries. --Parsifal _Hello 23:00, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Short reply...

Hi - Thanks for your note - have to make this short - time management issues.... Meanwhile, re your "PS"... , at the timestamp of this message, the word "broad" is missing from "broad range of genres" in the intro, even though it's strongly supported by the references. The star's end reference I re-added last night, as it was just a reference and not a content change, GP's not reverted it; we'll see if that changes. The Greek stuff is cool too (and not OR, it's of historical interest), but less important than the intro. I'll reply to the rest of your note as soon as I can make the time... Have a good one... --Parsifal _Hello 06:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. GP comment and my reply, on new SpM editor's talk page --Parsifal _Hello 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS... Does HoS program Space Music? --Parsifal _Hello 03:36, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPPS... further on HoS --Parsifal _Hello 07:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safety

"Obviously I can safely look at the page for a film I've seen, or for a book I already know I won't want to see. But for anything in between those categories – any anime, computer game, film, book, or TV series that I might or might not want to see, as well as for random characters like the Dread Pirate Roberts where I might not be able to remember what fictional work they're from – Wikipedia is no longer safe for me to use."

-Alex Churchill (emphasis added)

Hey, Milo. I'm wondering how you might integrate this use of the word "safe" into your general thesis that the word "warning" is misappiled to spoiler tags? Ethan Mitchell 19:55, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't able to find the quote on the web, so I'm not certain of the context, including exactly which Alex Churchill this is.

"Spoiler alert" and "spoiler warning" are the two most popular web forms of describing upcoming spoilers (see statistics below). The profit-hyped use of "alert" and "warning" to imply "danger" also falsely imply that spoilering disappointment is dangerous. Mr. Churchill is rhetorically inverting these popular false-implications of danger to a direct expression of safety.

However, once inverted, "safe" is a slightly broader term than are "warning", and "danger". At M-W.com "safe", the first meaning word refers to "harm", but the second word is "risk". At M-W.com "risk", the first word is "loss", referring to financial loss, and the second word is "injury".

My reading of M-W.com is that Mr. Churchill is using "safe", formally incorrectly in reference to spoiler notices.

I posted the following Google search on 19 August:

"...there are 765,000 of "spoiler warning" (49%), a suprising 762,000 of "spoiler alert" (49%), and 14,000 of "spoiler notice" (0.9%)." | "...827 instances of "spoiler caution" (0.05%), possibly a UK-influenced usage." [total of 1,541,827 hits]

In a Google search on 7 November:

There are 729,000 hits on "spoiler warning" (46%), 857,000 on "spoiler alert" (54%), and 2,820 on "spoiler notice"(0.18%), 732 for "spoiler caution" (0.05%). a total of 1,589,552 hits.

Total hits are up 47,725; "spoiler warning" down 36,000; "spoiler alert" up 95,000; "spoiler notice" down 11,180; "spoiler caution" down 95. The hit count changes from 8/19 to 11/7 probably say more about Google web crawls and searches than they say about changes in rhetorical usage. With only two data points, it's not possible to decide whether "warning" or "alert" is more popular.

However, based on the total number of hits, I previously drew the conclusion that possibly a million fans of narrative suspense exist externally to Wikipedia, and that possibility remains a reasonable one, including that they collectively do not approve of the removal of 45,000 Wikipedia spoiler tags in May 2007. Milo 07:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a barnstar

		The Socratic Barnstar
		I, Parsifal, hereby award this most rhetorical of barnstars to Milomedes, for the dependable and unique excellence of his concept-English focus-devices, memorable utility words, and arguments both deep and entertaining at the same time. --Parsifal _Hello 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I know you like a blank user page and probably have no use for a barnstar, but after reading your response to Melodia's meltdown, and various other of your (non-GP, non SpM) debates, I wanted to express my appreciation for what I've learned from your unusual and intriguing approach. I don't know if you've studied the techniques or made them up yourself, but I've never seen anything like it; you make logical points that often that take some thought to apprehend but then seem simple and clear once they are apprehended, and somehow, right there in the midst of the rhetoric, humor is lurking in the next turn of phrase.

I'm taking an extended wikibreak due to time management issues, so I won't be on-wiki as regularly as I have been. You were the first person to post on my talk page in March, and I'm sure you recall what the issue was. I will still edit and check my talk page and watchlist when I can, but I don't know how often. SpM and related topics of course, will have my attention when I do. In the meantime, I have some insights about Wikipedia I'd like to discuss with you, but in email, not on-Wiki (and [GP], since you are reading this, no, you are not what's on my mind here)... My email link is active and you are certainly welcome to use it, though I am aware that you have told others you don't use email, so if you choose not to, I understand and no problem.

Best Wishes,... --Parsifal _Hello 08:59, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

So much for Wikibreak, eh? Actually, I am limiting my time compared to previously, though I need to scale back more.

I guess I should post the following on the talk page, maybe I will later, but for now I just wanted to let you know why I didn't add the footnotes you requested. They are all there in the history section, and they can be collected if needed, but I didn't add them because the first part of that sentence was pure OR, that the usage of the term is limited to artists who used the term themselves (even with the 8 commentator exception).

It may be a true fact, or maybe not, I don't know. I've been surprised at how many sources I found already about space music before HoS. But I have not been able to find even one source discussing the historical use of the term, or whether or not it was used before a certain time. If we were writing about "Rock and Roll" we could easily find sources like that. But in this case, we don't have them, so the only way to include that statement would be to toss WP:V out the window.... well, IMHO that is. --Parsifal _Hello 03:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. a little something for your watchlist... --Parsifal _Hello 05:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Logical fallacy

I've responded at Talk:Space music, but in the form of a question. I don't understand what [GP] is getting at any more than you do. We'll just have to see what he says. Postmodern Beatnik 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request For Comment opened at WP:PW regarding spoilers and sources

[5]. As you were previously involved in a debate at WP:PW over spoilers and sources, you may wish to comment at the link. Thanks, Dav nel 03 21:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have some love

TheDJ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! I give you a smile instead. Like those a lot more. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Annie Oakley: I did it because....

(Copied from User:Clay4president2)
Hi, I don't know why you added "Category:People from Pinehurst, North Carolina" to Annie Oakley, the superstar sharpshooter (1860-1926). She was from western Ohio, and AFAIK, the only other place she had put down significant roots was Cambridge, Maryland. Perhaps there is a wrestler by that ring name? If so, that person should be added to Annie Oakley (disambiguation). (Please reply here if desired) Milo 06:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the Pinehurst, North Carolina page claims that she was a notable from that city. I was going merely on that citation. Clay4president2 (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from User:Clay4president2)

According to Dorchester County Public Library Annie Oakley biography, she is indeed a notable of Pinehurst, North Carolina, as well as several other places. Reportedly, Annie and Frank performed and lived for a number of years in a Pinehurst hotel after they sold their house in Cambridge.

The category problem seems to be that she is not from Pinehurst, which I usually understand to mean a place where one is born or grows up. Milo 04:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Note User:Clay4president2 removed the category 00:55, 6 February 2008)

Great work on "Christian cult"

Great work on the "Christian Cult" article. You really whipped it into shape. --Editor2020 (talk) 03:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deleted redirect Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Christian cult

Thanks for pointing that out, I'm not sure why it showed up red for me. I've restored the redirect. east.718 at 18:02, February 18, 2008

Notes and References compromise

A solomonic decision. Works for me.--Editor2020 (talk) 01:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forces of light

The Christian idea you refer to on User talk:Will Beback actually comes from Zoroastrianism. Viriditas (talk) 14:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know this. I see that there are two ideas, one is Biblical, but both can be popularly expressed together. Milo 07:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bernard Lewis, those biblical ideas originate in Zoroastrianism. Josephus reported that Cyrus II of Persia freed the Jews from captivity, and Lewis asserts that they brought back elements of Zoroastrianism with them to Jerusalem, ideas which eventually found their way into Christianity. Viriditas (talk) 10:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An Advent bulletin arrived last week, containing:
COLLECT FOR THE FIRST SUNDAY OF ADVENT
...give us grace to cast away the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light,...

This phrase is adapted from the 1662 Book of Common Prayer[6], spelled "armour" there. The entire col'-lect has been substantially updated for language since 1662. Also this collect has been recast in Common Worship, a semiofficial contemporary replacement for the BCP.
This collect is based on KJV Romans 13:12. Milo 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anon IP discussion (again)

Hi. A new discussion relating to an anon-IP editor on Illegal immigration to the United States — a person who may possibly be the same anon-IP you and I talked about last summer — is happening at User talk:GTBacchus#Dispute resolution help needed. Just FYI, in case you might want to join in (but I'll certainly understand if you decide you don't want to). Richwales (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting discussion update.

I think GTBacchus is handling it well. I'm not sure what I could usefully contribute to the recent discussion, especially since I would be piling on when the anon already feels surrounded. But I do have a practical suggestion.

I think it's pointless to further try to persuade anon that he should acquire an account. He has taken a position that not doing so makes him a better editor, and since he doesn't have to, that's the philosophical end of that discussion.

My impression is that anon perceives a tactical advantage in the present arrangement of using a wide range of dynamic IP numbers. 166.199.165.88 says he's using an iPhone to do portable wireless IP editing. Other numbers that seem to be his are from variety of eastern U.S. geolocations according to ip2location.com, perhaps because he is traveling. But they all have one thing in common.

Since he doesn't seem willing to adopt a text signature as requested of him, I suggest that a simple text be used to label his edits based on his consistent wireless ISP (per whois.arin.net:43) of Service Provider Corporation (SPC). One could add a tag following each IP number post such as:

-166.199.165.88 (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC) [ SPC user [7] ]

Wikitext of the tag: [ [[User_talk:GTBacchus#Dispute_resolution_help_needed|SPC user]] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Username#Placed_this_tag] ]

Clicking on SPC user navigates to wherever the most recent discussion concerning him is, thus functioning something like a talk page. The following link identifies the user or bot who made the tag edit.

This tag has an advantage similar to a text signature, in that all of the the anon's edits can be discussed as "SPC user", which phrase is an indisputable fact. If he edit wars the tag, then he can be held accountable for avoiding scrutiny, and in any case he could not out-edit a bot. Milo 07:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting idea. If I (or someone) were to decide to do this, how might I (or someone) go about implementing it as a bot? I confess I'm not very familiar right now with how bots work in general, and how a bot like this could automatically identify edits from a range of IP addresses in particular. I'm not saying, at this point, that I'm definitely going to do it; I still want to mull it over and just want some more technical background at this time. Richwales (talk) 14:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that the SPC user case is primarily a political problem, and that technical tools are pressure points toward a political settlement.

An initial technical step is simply manual tagging. An IP-tagging bot would be implemented in a second phase following manual IP-tagging proof of concept. For a variety of reasons, a bot phase might not actually be implemented. However, the fact that it is practical could have a significant political effect during the manual phase.

It isn't necessary to know the details of bot script programming to write an algorithm. A bot algorithm is a list of steps that a human could do to write a wikitext tag, that don't require intelligent decision making. Given an algorithm, a skilled bot programmer could write the actual bot script. Once written, a relatively simple bot script can often be maintained by someone with less-developed programming skills.

This algorithm would begin by consulting a user space subpage with a list of pages known to be written to by SPC user. The subpage would also contain the block ranges used by SPC for its wireless data service, as predetermined by manually looking up the rangeblock tables at whois.arin.net. The bot would periodically read the listed pages, looking for IP number formatted signatures, including those added by a signature bot. If it finds an IP signature, it checks whether the IP number is within the listed range blocks by using simple arithmetic. If it is, the bot checks for a properly formatted tag. If the tag does not exist, and never existed, it writes one using current tag text data found on the subpage. If the tag does exist, or used to exist, it checks whether it has changed or been deleted since last examined, logs any changes to a log page, and notifies the programmer, who will decide whether the change is reasonable like a new talk location, or requires some consensus enforcement process.

The bot might not ever reach implementation phase if SPC user engages in edit warring or gaming of the tag during the manual proof of concept phase. This would be evidence of avoiding scrutiny, and would be another step toward removal of SPC user from the project.

One way to persuade SPC user that he has no choice except to either comply with the guiderules or depart, is to convince him that he cannot avoid scrutiny. If SPC user is topic banned, the bot could be useful in preventing his return, by promptly reporting all IP edits to those pages with whois data that can be added to a master list of SPC user's ISPs. Milo 20:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from WP:Linking

Thank you for supporting my proposal. I am wary, though, to discuss your items 2 and 3 on that page for fear of overly complicating the discussion. Would it be possible to move them to WT:Linking and WT:Build the web, respectively? (We could replace them with a template like {{Moved conversation}}.) — Sebastian 02:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your discussion concern. But, there are three problems with splitting the discussion points: (1) Reductionist focusing on the details rather than being guided by philosophy is part of the problem. (2) WT:Build the web is an archived discussion that says post at WT:Linking. (3) Two discussions is still reductionist – where is the holistic/principles discussion to be held?

How about this: I'll use a triple small font to minimize 2 & 3:

1. WP:Linking is unable to – and therefore should not – overarch. The reason is that...

2. Accordingly, WP:Linking should be renamed WP:Internal links (over the current Help:Contents/Links redirect)...

3. For a very general overarching, WP:Build the web should be restored as a titled...

and request that the the participants focus on 1, but keep 2 & 3 in mind for moving the discussion over to WT:Linking for discussing 2 & 3 ?

Having said this, WT:EL is like herding cats, so it probably won't work as planned. Yet it's a compromise among options, of which none are quite right or necessarily workable. Milo 03:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's a great idea about the smaller font! I haven't really looked at WT:EL yet; I can imagine that it's an emotional issue because so often EL get abused for spam, so people's nerves may be thin there. — Sebastian 03:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nested small-elements

Hi Milo. I saw you using nested tags in the Blood and Roses MfD; see here where I cut them. This sort of nesting really isn't proper form and I hope you'll not do it down the road. It gives inconsistent rendering in browsers because a few *do* step the size down further while modern browsers do not. Same goes for <big>. Other than that, you're spot-on in that discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So FF2 isn't a modern browser??

Are you saying that double and triple depth

smallsmallersmallest text

smallsmallersmallest text don't render smaller at all, or only small to the first level?

If the latter, that's not an inconsistency that I have a problem with. Everyone will see some deemphasis, and some people will just see more subtlety in fonting than others.

Anyway, it's a trademark of sorts, so I wouldn't want to quit using it unless it produces bad effects. Milo 09:21, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're at Firefox v.3.5.2 and it's a lot better, so you should get the new one: http://www.mozilla.com/ — there are lots of improvements; I recommend it.

The non-modern browsers I was referring to were old pieces of junk that are *way* past their sell-by date; especially ones from the Pacific Northwest of the US. If you want finer control over the text size, consider using CSS:

small
smaller
smaller yet

If you do to much of this you make the text unreadable for some users. On higher resolution displays even one step down is illegible. Nesting the big and small tags does produce inconsistent results in different browsers. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new section - rename me

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses|Blood and Roses

Seeing as I agree with you, I'm wondering if you possibly misinterpreted my recent comment at the MFD? --JayHenry (talk) 03:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"MOS says not to link quotes is because linking is ...add your own layer of meaning to someone else's words." That's an impressively good argument from authority. Milo 02:41, 20 August 2009

That's my high compliment to your excellent argument of the type classified as "argument from authority" – the authority being the Manual of style. Milo 05:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing someone of argument from authority is not typically a compliment so I'm highly suspicious you've missed my point, but seeing as we're arguing the same side, I suppose it's no big deal. --JayHenry (talk) 23:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the introduction to "Argument from authority" misleadingly suggests that it is always a fallacy. In paragraph two:

"On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true, the fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism:..."

In the context of "impressively good argument", my reference is clearly to the non-fallacious meaning.

Anyway, logical fallacies in debates are usually mistakes, not wrongdoing – so pointing them out wouldn't be an accusation. Milo 00:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making legal threats and refusing to redact them despite being given numerous opportunities to do so.. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Jayron32 05:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Initial legal threat here: [8]
Attempts to get him to redact, and his reticence to do so availible at WP:ANI#Legal threats by Milomedes.
If he makes an unequivocal statement where he redacts his clear legal threats, any admin may unblock without seeking my consent. --Jayron32 05:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, --Lambiam 11:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC). (I'm fully aware of the fact that, having been blocked, you cannot "enter your statement" as suggested above, but this is the standard text of the template for this required notification. --L.)[reply]

Revisiting your block

Apologies if I'm digging at old wounds, but I thought you might be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Revisiting Milomedes. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive203#Revisiting Milomedes—Ash (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]