Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Clusternote (talk | contribs) at 10:21, 9 March 2012 (→Edit warring). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Clusternote, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your kindly message. --Clusternote (talk) 01:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

(Copyvio)

Hi, I like the image you added to E-mu Systems but it's a copyright violation as is, because you show a copyrighted movie poster almost in its entirety in the photo. Do you think you could crop the original you uploaded to eliminate the poster? --Andy Walsh (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Andy. Which photograph do you said about ? --Clusternote (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. A little time ago, I blurred bottom poster using 20x20 mosaic. It may be not copyright violation at now : ) --Clusternote (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Per you edit here you are maintaining that links to commercial sites that offer materials for sale (not for free) are appropriate links per WP:EL, and furthermore that sites that have not been updated in 5+ years are useful historical sources. I suggest you take notice of the following items in EL that are not appropriate external links: "Links to individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services and Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject, and lastly, Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.

I would suggest that as long as you are unwilling to edit according to policy, you should not accuse others of vandalism. MSJapan (talk) 03:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MSJapan. Now I'm verifying article and links. Don't hurry up, please. --Clusternote (talk) 05:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

As the result, two links are valid, one links is not at all related to Technics brand (may be some confusion of contributor), and rest 2 links seems gray. Therefore I kept 2 links. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the image you added to Yamaha DX1

Hi, just letting you know that I have removed the image you added to the Yamaha DX1 article. While it's not so bad of a image edit, I think it might be misleading because it makes the DX1 appear to be flat. Generally speaking, you should avoid making heavy edits to images that are to be uploaded to wikipedia. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 18:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Did you see Yamaha DX1 ? Here is a sample image. DX1 has large flat panel in design, thus I think my edit image is enough accurate. If you don't think so, please tell me where is different, then I'll correct the image.
BTW: Why do you think DX1 is not flat ? --Clusternote (talk)

My main concern about your edit is that it makes the control panel look like it's horizontal (specially if you look at the wood on the sides of the keyboard and ignore the keys), while the control panel in the real thing is slightly diagonal. Another issue is that the article itself is very short, so adding more images makes it look pretty bad (this has been discussed in the talk page before). It would be ok to replace the pic in the infobox with a real top view picture though. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Drumitar

Hey, what happened with the Drumitar page (after I merged it, that is)? I'm kinda confused. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 04:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

After your merging, I couldn't find Image:Drumtar.jpg in the Drumitar article (already redirected to Zendrum). And I misunderstood the old article (Drumitar) should be recovered. But, it was completely my mistake, so already I canceled my changes on Drumitar and added image on Zendrum article. Sorry for my confusing ! --Clusternote (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Guitar synthesizer, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Audible (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:46, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice. I'll improve the link on later.

Note: I've link it for arousing attentions of readers, because most musical instrument tend to avoid the use of such expressions like a "audible feedback" (it possibly implies non-musical sound). However, if a link to disambiguation page was inappropriate, I want to correct link. --Clusternote (talk) 11:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

 Processed --Clusternote (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Synthesizer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Electromagnetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

 Processed --Clusternote (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

January 2012

Thank you for trying to keep Misplaced Pages free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Additive synthesis, are not considered vandalism under Misplaced Pages guidelines. Misplaced Pages has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Misplaced Pages:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. SudoGhost 06:41, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

On this issue, at first, I also think it may be a gentle discussion by a slightly confusing user (he/she seems to be still confusing the meaning of "realtime": On the description of historical opitical instruments (without any computation), he/she added link to real-time computing ).

However, at last, I recognize it may be a kind of vandalism or sabotage. Even after showing several source on discussion page by me, this user ignore the source, repeatedly reverted the article without his/her sources, and still request source to me. Is it a obvious sabotage actions against normal article editing ?

If more appropriate expression exist, please teach it me. best regards, --Clusternote (talk) 07:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Additive synthesis shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. I already reported it on , however, I didn't get result. --Clusternote (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Just so you know, I've fully protected the article for three days: in the future, please don't edit war or break the three-revert rule. Discuss it on the talk page. If after the three days, you or 71.169.179.65 return to edit warring, admins may take further action like blocks. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your protection of article. I don't want to own any articles, and also I don't want to edit-war on revert-war. --Clusternote (talk) 19:14, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please stop the edit warring on Clavia. As you are aware (as I can see from the warnings above) this is not how you constructively edit on Misplaced Pages. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You should stop reverting war on Clavia. I already advice you to search improved image you want, however you ignore my advice and immediately revert edit. It is not constructive way of edit. --Clusternote (talk) 08:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

To OpenFuture: here is already closed thread. Use Talk:Clavia for the rest of discussion (I copied your last message on Talk:Clavia ) --Clusternote (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

You do not have my permission to move my comments around. I warn you in the proper place: Your talk page. You are for some reason warning me on an article page, where it does not belong. You can close the discussion as much as you want, I'll continue to discuss your behavior on the proper location: Your talk page. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:45, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And you say you don't want "dispersion of the discussion", yet you for absolutely no reason at all, started a second section on Talk:Clavia about the same thing? And instead of responding to what I wrote, you just copied in what I wrote here? You are not engaging in constructive behavior, you are just disrupting as it is now. That's not a good attitude. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

User:OpenFuture, please go out from my talk page, and discuss on Talk:Clavia. --Clusternote (talk) 10:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done Rest of discussion may be placed on Talk:Clavia