text:
Talk:The Machinery of Freedom

2003
This article reads like a publisher's blurb. It needs to be edited for NPOV by someone who's read the book. Thalia/Karen 20:44, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

After having been edited by Finlay McWalter, POV looks fine to me now, although it would be nice if someone who's read it would expand the article. Thalia/Karen 22:09, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

2006
This happens to be my favorite book and I've read it about 3 times. What specifically do you think needs to be added?Atripodi 09:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Utilitarian?
Hmm... in anarcho-capitalism Friedman is a consequentialist, and now suddenly he "employs" utilitarianism. This suggests, even if it doesn't quit state, that he is a utilitarian. This is what I wrote on the other talk page:

 * I don't have The Machinery of Freedom on hand right now, but I'm pretty sure there is a passage where David D. Friedman not only very explicitly denies being a consequentalist, but in fact expresses his amusement about the idea. Instead, he puts up philosophical arguments to show that both naïve consequentialism and naïve deontological/natural-rights ethics can lead to absurdities when taken to their logical extremes. In general, Friedman seems not to worry about this too much. Unlike staunch everything-from-first-principle rationalists like Rothbard, but notably very much in the spirit of Popper and Hayek, he doesn't seem particularly committed to an all-ecompassing grand axiomatic System Of Ethics And Law, but prefers to show how his ideas make sense under a variety of reasonable assumptions, and analyze them more from the perspective of a social scientist than that of a moral philosopher. I think this derives from a relative lack of interest in actual politics. Friedman does not seem to be worried that having subtler ideas or a more mess-with-your-mind writing style would make it harder to attract a political following than a more Randian "I'm always right and this is how the world works" style.

Consequentialism "poops out" when it needs to justify the criterion for judging consequences, and deontology often gets eerily consequentialist again when the philosopher almost inevitably attempts to justify his/her axiomatic rights. I have the impression that Friedman understands this mess pretty well, and just refuses to panic about it very hard. This may throw off people who are used to more rigid modes of thought, but it does not mean that Friedman is a shallow or confused thinker; to the contrary. It just means that he is willing to make things as simple as possible, but no simpler.Sjeng 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Friedman states that as far as economics goes he is a consequentialist. That is, his goal in that capacity is to find out how the most wealth for the most people can be procured. He feels these pragmatic arguments to have more rhetorical appeal and sees a lot of holes in the Rothbardian natural rights argument. This does not mean that he is an ethical consequentialist- see the chapter on GK Chesterton for more on his ethical views, which he describes as "Catholicism without God". I don't think his ethics are particularly unique or important within the context of his work (which may be unique of itself for an an-cap writer). "Social scientist rather than moral philosopher" sounds correct to me too. He approaches politics as a social planner would, utilizing his gift for thought experiments and abstract thinking, but comes to a solution that rejects social planning entirely. This led Rothbard to call him a "weak anarchist", one who doesn't hate the state on principle, but happens to think it doesn't work very well. I don't think anyone can believe that the complete inviability of government to be coincidental (not based on human nature) and I think Friedman agrees. He just recognizes his own limitations and the limitations of the field of ethics well enough not to breech the subject.Atripodi 06:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes that removed most content
I note that a series of seemingly innocuous edits over the course of a couple of years, many making entirely specious claims (for one example, one claiming that a statement about Friedman's stated opinion in the book was "unsourced" when clearly the source of Friedman's stated opinion is the book) reduced this article to a contentless stub over a course of two years. I will not presume that this was an intentional strategy, as that would have been an action taken in bad faith, but the effect was to remove all utility from the page. I am now systematically restoring the content. Pmetzger (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. Please review WP policies WP:RS and WP:V. We need secondary reliable sources to select which parts of the book or ideas are noteworthy and need to be included in a WP article.  As editors, we do not rely on our own opinions, no matter how well informed, for this judgment.  We simply represent what acknowledged RS have to say.   SPECIFICO  talk  23:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "We need secondary reliable sources to select which parts of the book or ideas are noteworthy" -- you do not need secondary sources to describe what the content of the book itself is. The book itself is the source for that. You are distorting the policies you claim to be following. This appears to be an attempt to simply remove all content from the page, including perfectly neutral content that simply describes what the book says. I note that you've been T-banned recently for similar behavior. If you edit the page again without discussing this in detail before making further alterations to remove perfectly reasonable content, I will bring this up for arbitration immediately. Pmetzger (talk) 01:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You appear not to understand policy regarding article content. I explained to you above that we need a secondary RS which summarizes and characterizes the noteworthy content of the book. I cited two policy pages which I hope you will read closely to develop an understanding of my statements on the article and talk pages. The fact is that this is a self-published work and we have only a single mention of it by any secondary source. I have tagged the article for notability and perhaps this will attract editors who can provide some additional RS references and provide a solid basis for keeping the article in WP. SPECIFICO talk 01:38, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "The fact is that this is a self-published work" -- no, it was published by Open Court for its first two editions. You are distorting again. Further, I have read both policies, neither says that you cannot describe the content of a book without finding secondary sources that also describe the book -- such a policy would be patently ridiculous since it would prevent discussing almost any book. If you believe otherwise, quote chapter and verse. Pmetzger (talk) 02:00, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, you originally removed the content before the third edition came out. You have no "it was self published" excuse available for that. Pmetzger (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, you have now re-added the clearly incorrect "notability" tag. The book is clearly well known, and that is trivial to demonstrate. I have reverted the edit -- if you wish to claim otherwise, discuss it here before re-adding the tag. Until we have consensus, please stop attempting to push your point of view unilaterally. Your edits essentially removed the work of all previous editors. Pmetzger (talk) 02:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read the policy and find good references to improve the article. Improving the article is entirely up to you.  Please add the publisher data and any noteworthy reviews to the article.  SPECIFICO  talk  02:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is of course always wonderful to improve an article, and I certainly will attempt to make it even better, but I don't believe that as it stands the article is violating any policy. Again, please quote me specific sentences from the policy that I can read that say it is impermissible for an article on a book to describe the content of the book itself without a secondary source that describes the content of the book. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * The notability tag does not belong here. The book has more than 500 citations on Google Scholar, which is significant. Limit-theorem (talk) 02:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The book is well known in its field. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * He is cited in many many venues by many prominent scholars, so I really don't see where this absurd "notability" is coming from. Here are the last 3 years Limit-theorem (talk) 02:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also don't see where the claim that SPECIFICO is making that an article about a book cannot contain descriptions of the content of the book without a secondary source stating that this is the book's content comes from. He has failed so far to quote the passages from the policies he cites that he claims have this effect. If you look at the edit history of the article, it was on this basis that he removed essentially all the content from the article. --Pmetzger (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it appears the "self published" claim is bogus even for the new edition. The forthcoming paperback is again from Open Court, see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0812698606/ Pmetzger (talk) 02:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Suggested improvements

 * Why is the section titled "Friedman's Law"?
 * Based on the humorous self-titling of the section of the book. The name is actually widely used, but documenting that would be painful. If it would be considered sufficient, the section could be re-titled "Observations about Government Inefficiency", and it could be noted inside the body text that he (somewhat jocularly) self-titled it "Friedman's Law". --Pmetzger (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The book is about libertarianism in general. Why does this particular theme ("Friedman's Law") stand out? – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not the editor who originally added that section. That said, I'm aware of the coinage being used widely in discussions about the costs of public vs. private solutions to problems, so I can see why another editor would have thought it was important to mention. --Pmetzger (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * While "Friedman's Law" is a minor point of the book, it is arguably the most original bit. —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * How are "Related books" related?
 * They're also books on the same topic. That said, there probably should just be a category for books on this topic with all these books and more -- such a section is non-standard. --Pmetzger (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As per my comment above, the book's topic is libertarianism. An article about a particular book cannot have a section. Instead, we use categories at the bottom of the page. (For example: Category:Libertarian books.) Perhaps a "Further reading" section (below the "References" section) would work provided the listed items were directly related to Friedman's book. I gather that Huemer's book does so. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note that I already spoke in terms of categories being potentially a better solution here. The book's topic is a subset of libertarianism, specifically, anarchocapitalism, not per se libertarianism in general. It is probably a good idea to create a category for that subset of books. --Pmetzger (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the sentence "An article about a particular book cannot have a section." —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * What is the relationship between the book and the "See also" items? (A brief note for each would help.)
 * Some of the "See also" items appear to be non-related, in fact. I can document the others with a note, if that is felt to be useful. --Pmetzger (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, let's see what you can do. – S. Rich (talk) 16:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * – S. Rich (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * What have notable commentators, scholars, or reviewers said about the book? Despite several editors indignant insistence that the book is notable and widely respected, no secondary RS description or acknowledgement of the work (other than the two "top-twenty" type mentions) has been added to the article.  Strange times indeed.   SPECIFICO  talk  11:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let us have some factual disciple here. So far claims that it is "self-published" and of "low notability" turned out to be false and all editors did is point out objective criteria for that (Google Scholar is an objective quantitative metric). "Strange times?" rather strange editing practices.Limit-theorem (talk) 13:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Google scholar does not determine notability. Please find RS discussion and refer to the WP notability standard. The notability tag does not assert that the subject is not notable. It invites editors to add RS content which establishes notability.  If an editor were convinced that the the subject fails notability, we may presume an AfD would have been mounted.  If the sourcing of this article is not improved it will remain weak and will not advance to anything approaching a Good Article.  Does this book present any original content?  Is it a scholarly treatment of the subject or more in the vein of a popular presentation?  We don't know because no editor has added sourced content that gives us a clue as to its character or content.  I hope you'll do so.  Whatever appears in Google's statistics or other "objective quantitative metric" does not address the quality and nature of sourced comment on this book. If article improvement could be accomplished by the application of Google's algorithms, Wikipedia would by now be a complete finished work.  SPECIFICO  talk  13:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Google scholar does not determine notability"? What kind of reasoning is this? Limit-theorem (talk) 14:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There could be situations of notability scoring low on GS, but the reverse is not true.Limit-theorem (talk) 14:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that it has been cited at least hundreds of times in the academic literature over 40 years is more than sufficient for notability here, not to mention the fact that the book is very widely known and influential in lay libertarian circles (as documented in the article in at least one critical reference). We could, of course, simply add hundreds of citations to the book in the article, but that would not make this a Good Article either, it would encrust it with useless data that someone seeking information on the book has no need for, concealing the useful information. I do not believe the request for additional information on notability here is reasonable -- there's more information here on notability than there is on the majority of books listed in Wikipedia. SPECIFICO keeps quoting the notability standards, but I've read them and this book clearly seems to fit and there seems to be no actual requirement that every notable work be encrusted with references to all available academic opinions on the work. --Pmetzger (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another straw man. Please add sourced content which presents the views of independent secondary RS publications.  SPECIFICO  talk  16:13, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Straw man"? This attitude is not helpful (another strange claim). We are here to improve articles not to demolish, erase and make patently false claims. Why don't you look into the numerous RS from Google scholar and select what you can find to help improve the article? Limit-theorem (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just say this once more and then it's up to you to decide whether to read and follow up on what I say: I've made no claim about the book (I happen to be a big fan of DF and his parents.)  I looked at the Google results and saw no RS citations from notable authors.  I am not sure whether there are any such sources, but any editor who believes that she has found RS discussion could really help out here by adding those sources and their ideas to the article.  If there are editors who "know" that there are RS discussions of the work based on some theory about Google's algorithms and their output, but have not seen or read any RS references, I don't think that such faith-based belief is going to help us improve that article.   SPECIFICO  talk  17:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Faith based belief"? We should trust an editor who does not seem to get simple facts rights ("self-publishing"), but not the standard Google "Algorithm" that is accepted in academic departments (in fact GS is transparent, counts all scholarly journals, and correlates with other scholarly metrics)?Limit-theorem (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I'm with Limit-theorem here at this point. This is not supposed to be an adversarial process, either, but rather one where we are supposed to cooperate to bring forth the best information possible to readers of Wikipedia. Please stop looking for reasons to gut the article. I assure you that this is indeed a popular, well known book in its niche, and if you feel that it is important that we demonstrate that objectively to readers, then we can work to find ways to demonstrate that objectively to readers. You earlier simply removed almost all of the content from the page, rather than discussing it on the Talk page and working with other editors to make sure the material was improved to be up to standards. I'd like to ask you to work positively with others on this, or to leave the article alone if you don't have time available to help maintain the page. Please do not remove material without consulting other concerned parties first here and gaining consensus. Pmetzger (talk) 18:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * It seems to me that notability and reliable sources are logically independent. A subject in pseudoscience, for example, is notable if it has a large number of unreliable sources! —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

 * If a couple of people or entities who are themselves notable enough for Wikipedia say this is an important book, that's at least a good start at establishing notability. —Tamfang (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

The tag has been changed. You should review WP policy on V and RS and find good secondary discussions of this book. Per Srich, you also need to find some secondary RS for creating a section and using the facetious reference in the work to "Friedman's Law" as its title. Many instances of "Friedman's Law" can be found in popular and academic literature. Some refer to Milton Friedman, some to Thomas Friedman, some to various other Friedman men and Friedman women. The title should be removed and the text should be catenated with that which precedes it. SPECIFICO talk  20:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Machinery of Freedom


text:
Junta (album)

Junta is the debut studio album by the American rock band Phish. The album was self-released by the band in May 1989 without the support from a record label, and received a wider release when Elektra Records reissued it on compact disc in 1992. Junta was preceded by two demo recordings – The White Tape (1986) and The Man Who Stepped Into Yesterday (1987) – which circulated among the band's fanbase but did not receive an official release.

Recording
The album was independently recorded at Euphoria Sound Studio, now known as Sound & Vision Media, in Revere, MA by engineer Gordon Hookailo. Some of the recording was documented on video tape by studio owner Howard Cook. The album is named after Ben "Junta" Hunter, the band's first official manager, whose nickname is pronounced with a hard J and a short U.

In addition to a few more traditionally structured songs, Junta contains symphonic-like epics and multi-part progressive rock and jazz suites.

Release
The recording was released on tape in 1988, and did not appear in stores officially until May 8, 1989. Phish held a release party concert for the Junta tape on May 9, 1989 at The Front club in their native Burlington, Vermont. The album was re-released by Elektra Records on October 26, 1992. The album was certified gold by the RIAA on October 9, 1997, and was certified platinum on July 7, 2004. In February 2009, the album became available as a download.

"Union Federal", "Sanity", and "Icculus" did not appear on the original cassette release, but rather only on the Elektra version, which had extra space on the CD format. "Union Federal" was taken from a jam session, while "Sanity" and "Icculus" were recorded live on July 25, 1988. There was a mix up in adding them to the Elektra version post-date, so the May 3, 1988 date inside the album notes is incorrect. The 2009 digital download also contained these three extra tracks, while the 2012 re-releases did not contain the extra tracks, as these were not part of the original album's stereo master reels. Other songs of the recording era include "Slave To The Traffic Light" and "Alumni Blues", both of which did not make it on the album or get a studio recording, but are live staples and appeared on The White Tape (1986).

2012 vinyl reissue
On February 13, 2012, it was announced that Junta would be released on vinyl for the first time on April 21, 2012 as a limited edition 3-LP vinyl set, as part of Record Store Day. The set was limited to 5,000 individually numbered copies. The vinyl release was created from the original stereo master reels and includes a free MP3 download of the entire album, transferred from the new vinyl master. Two digital transfers were also made from the original stereo master reels, one recorded at 24 bit / 96 kHz, and a second digital transfer recorded at 24 bit / 192 kHz. On this new release "Contact" is restored to its full length as on the original cassette release.

Track listing
Notes:

 * Tracks 4-6 on disc two are bonus tracks exclusive to CD editions of the album.
 * Certain pressings of the album contain an extended version of "Contact".

Personnel
Phish
 * Trey Anastasio - guitars, lead vocals, producer
 * Page McConnell - keyboards, vocals, producer
 * Mike Gordon - bass guitar, vocals, producer, lead vocals on "Contact"
 * Jon Fishman - drums, vocals, trombone, producer

Others
 * Gordon Hookailo - engineer
 * Jim Davignon- Assistant engineer
 * Bob Ludwig - mastering
 * Michael F. Mills - design
 * Jim Pollock - artwork

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Junta (album)


text:
Ricardo Palma

Manuel Ricardo Palma Soriano (February 7, 1833 – October 6, 1919) was a Peruvian author, scholar, librarian and politician. His magnum opus is the Tradiciones peruanas.

Biography
According to the official account, Manuel Ricardo Palma y Carrillo was born on February 7, 1833, in Lima, inscribed as the son of Pedro Ramón Palma and Guillerma Carrillo y Pardos, possibly his grandmother. On April 6, 1837, his father married Dominga Soriano y Carrillo, Guillerma's daughter. However, the documentary evidence shows many contradictions that was pointed out by Monsignor Salvador Herrera Pinto who relying on oral traditions collected and written testimonies directed to him (a catholic bishop) concludes that Ricardo Palma was born in the town of Talavera, province of Andahuaylas, Apurímac Region.

His family was living in Lima after migrating from the province. His mother was a mestiza with African roots. His parents separated when he was still young. He was educated at a Jesuit school and attended the University of San Carlos on an irregular basis. He suspended his studies to perform voluntary service in the Peruvian navy for six years.

From a young age, he dabbled in politics as a member of the liberal camp. In 1860 he, among others, such as José Gálvez Egúsquiza, was believed to have participated in a failed plot against president Ramón Castilla which resulted in an exile to Chile from which he returned in October 1862. He made a trip to Europe in 1864–1865 and when he returned to Lima in 1865 he became involved again in political affairs and public service until 1876. He held the positions of Consul of Peru in Pará, Brazil, Senator for the Loreto and official in the Ministry of War and Navy.

The War of the Pacific (1879–1883) between Chile and Peru disrupted Palma's life and resulted in the virtually complete destruction of his own library as well as that housed in the National Library of Peru. After the war, Palma was named the director of the National Library, a post he held until his retirement in 1912. Palma successfully took on the task of rebuilding the National Library that was ransacked by the occupation forces of the Chilean army in 1881 following the battle of Lima during the War of the Pacific. Palma was able to bring the National Library back from the ashes so that it regained its previous stature and became recognized once again as one of the top libraries in South America. It was through his personal friendship with the then Chilean president Domingo Santa María that Palma was able to recover an estimated 10,000 books from Chilean hands, as well as many other works which were recovered through his own personal efforts.

With his lover Clemencia Ramírez in 1872, he had his son Clemente Palma, who became a prominent writer of fantastic tales, usually horror stories, that were influenced by Edgar Allan Poe. In 1876, he married Cristina Román y Olivier with whom he had seven children: Félix Vital, Angélica, Ricardo, Peregrina Augusta, Cristina, Cristián and Renée Cristina. His daughter Angélica Palma was also a writer and a member of the early feminist movement in Peru.

Literary work
Ricardo Palma published his first verses and became the editor of a political and satiric newssheet called El Diablo (The Devil) at 15.

During his early years, Ricardo Palma composed romantic dramas (which he later repudiated) and poetry. His first book of verse, Poesías (Poems), appeared in 1855. He gained an early reputation as a historian with his book on the activities of the Spanish Inquisition during the period of the Viceroyalty of Peru (Anales De La Inquisicion De Lima: Estudio Historico, 1863).

He also wrote for the satirical press of Peru where he distinguished himself as a prolific columnist and one of the bastions of Peruvian political satire in the nineteenth century. He collaborated with the satirical sheet El Burro (The Donkey) and became later one of the principal contributors to the satirical magazine La Campana (The Bell). Later he founded the magazine La Broma (The Joke). He was also a regular contributor to serious publications such as El Mercurio, El Correo, La Patria, El Liberal, Revista del Pacífico and Revista de Sud América. He was further active as a foreign newspaper correspondent during the War of the Pacific. Palma's literary reputation rests upon his creation and development of the literary genre known as tradiciones, short stories that mix history and fiction, written both to amuse and educate, according to the author's declared intention. It was by creatively using poetic license and by deviating from "pure" history that Palma gained his large South American readership. His Tradiciones peruanas span several centuries, with an emphasis on earlier colonial and republican times in Peru.

The Tradiciones were published from 1872 to 1910 in a series of volumes, some of which are freely available on the internet (see the bottom of this page for links). There are also many different editions and selections of the Tradiciones commercially available. The Tradiciones peruanas do not meet formal historical standards of accuracy or reliability sufficiently to be considered "history," but Palma never intended them to be read as "pure" history. Since they are primarily historical fiction, they should be understood and enjoyed as such.

The author's opinion, the opinions of the other primary sources or oral narrators of the stories he collects and transmits, as well as hearsay, play a large role in his stories. One of the best-known of the Tradiciones, especially within American Spanish literature classes, is "La camisa de Margarita"..

Some of the Tradiciones peruanas have been translated into English under the title The Knights of the Cape and Thirty-seven Other Selections from the Tradiciones Peruanas of Ricardo Palma (ed. by Harriet de Onís, 1945) and more recently under the title Peruvian Traditions (ed. by Christopher Conway and translated by Helen Lane, Oxford University Press, 2004).

The Tradiciones peruanas are recognised as a considerable contribution to Peruvian and South American literature. Some critics have classified the Tradiciones as part of nineteenth-century Romanticism.

Palma's Tradiciones en Salsa Verde were published posthumously. These stories are similar to the Tradiciones peruanas but, because of their bawdy nature, they were not published during Palma's lifetime for fear of shocking the sedate Lima establishment.

Throughout his life, Ricardo Palma published various articles and books on history, the results of his own historical research such as the Anales De La Inquisicion De Lima: Estudio Historico (1863) and Monteagudo y Sánchez Carrión (1877). He was a noted linguistic scholar and wrote a number of works on the subject including the Neologismos y americanismos and Papeletas lexográficas. He campaigned for recognition by the Real Academia Española of the Latin-American and Peruvian contributions to the Spanish language.

Personal letters
In 1999, a well-known London auction house announced the sale of a batch of 50 letters that Ricardo Palma had written to an Argentinian friend. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Peru persuaded the National Library of Peru on Lima to participate in the auction. It had been more than 50 years since Peru had bought cultural heritage abroad. Today these letters are kept at the National Library of Peru. Ricardo Palma University has recently published the letters of Palma in three volumes (2005–2007).

title: Ricardo Palma


text:
Talk:Hungarian Rhapsodies

Untitled (plural in Hungarian)
Re the recent change of "verbunkos" to "verbunko": isn't "verbunkos" singluar? --Camembert

See my article, verbunko. Mikkalai 21:14, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * The thing is, Google returns just 11 hits for "verbunko" and 1110 for "verbunkos", and both the Penguin and Grove Concise dictionaries of music call it the "verbunkos" rather than the "verbunko". So unless you have a similarly authoritative source to show that "verbunko" really is correct, I'm going to change it back (and move that article). --Camembert
 * It seems you are right, sorry. I relied only on a couple sources. I'll replace this word everywhere I used it. Sorry. Mikkalai 23:00, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It's no problem - everyone makes the odd mistake (I speak from experience). Thanks for starting the verbunkos article :) --Camembert

 * On the third thought, according to my limited knowledge of magyarnyelv, the suffix os/es/ó in Hungarian loosely corresponds to the English suffix or/er. For example, dance->dancer = tanc->tancos, song->singer = enek->enekes, etc. So, "verbunkos" would be "the recruiter". In modern Hungarian it is "verbuvaló". One might guess that in times past the form "verbunkó" was quite valid. Did anyone happen to read some XVIII Hungarian texts lately? :-)

 * BTW, right now it comes to my mind that "csárda" is a derogatory name for the German soldier and also for a beer-house/pub/tavern; hence "csardas" is a dance of drinking German soldiers!:-) Shall I put this info into the Csardas article? Mikkalai 02:52, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * 18th century Hungarian definitely isn't my area of expertise :-) However, I did have a look at the verbunkos article in the full Grove today, and it doesn't mention it ever being known as "verbunko" (I wouldn't take that as absolutely conclusive, but it's probably as good as we're going to get for now).

 * As for the csardas stuff, if you're sure it's correct, I'd say add that to the article by all means. --Camembert

Cartoon reference
The way it's phrased now makes it sound like Rhapsody Rabbit is similar to Who Framed Roger Rabbit, when in fact it's similar to The Cat Concerto. This needs to be reworded, though right now I can't think of a good way to do it.--AviDrissman 18:19, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * I've expanded the animation history of Rhapsody #2, which should clarify the situation. Bjimba 20:49, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

#2 and #12 (aka "#2")
Information at allmusic.com is leading me to believe that both C#m Rhapsodies have been called "#2". I know there is sometimes confusing when you buy a CD as to which C#m Rhapsody you'll get. Could a clarifying point be added to explain this?

The main clarifying point is whether it is piano or orchestral. allmusic.com "When Liszt fashioned orchestral versions of six of the 19 Hungarian Rhapsodies for piano, he reordered them, thereby unintentionally creating some confusion that remains even today. As indicated in the headnote, this Rhapsody No. 2 for orchestra is a transcription of No. 12. But a note of caution must be given here: there have been several popular recordings that have revised Liszt's renumbering, returning the famous Rhapsody No. 2 (for piano) to its second position in the orchestral version." Jnavarra 20:31, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

As it stands (24 Jan 2013), the text puts no. 2 in second and no. 12 in fourth, but the table has them the other way round. It needs fixing one way or the other, for consistency.86.4.253.180 (talk) 02:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure the external link to the free mp3 site of Sean Bennett should be included as it is a version of a version of the original piece.

Worth mentioning?
These pieces heavily influences Brahms' Hungarian dances and Dvorak's Slavic dances. I find the resemblance so close it might be worth mentioning. Anyone else? MotherFunctor 02:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Just found this, (it's circumstantial, though). http://cd.ciao.co.uk/Dvor_aacute_k_Slavonic_Dances_Brahms_Hungarian_Dances_Liszt_Hungarian_Rhapsodies__6073937 MotherFunctor 02:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This is interesting: there is almost the exact same theme in Zigeunerweisen (page 12) as in Hungarian Rhapsody #13  (page 9) 71.102.216.101 (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

 * The final section of the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 8 has the same material as the middle section of Brahms' Hungarian Dance No. 3 and a theme used in the Hungarian Rhapsody No. 12 is also used in Brahms' Hungarian Dance No. 15. Kostaki mou (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

References introduced
The references have been introduce now, so I believe it's safe to remove the notice at the top of the page.81.155.67.201 18:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Form
Is anyone going to manetion anything about the lassu-friss alternation of slow and fast music or anything else that woud have to do directly with the form of these pieces in this section. There's damn little as it is. Jonyungk (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

20th Hungarian rhapsody?
In the 1950's I read of an unpublished 20th rhapsody. It was said to be in a museum in Weimar. I do not know whether it survived World War II. Does anyone know about it? Scott Tillinghast, Houston TX (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Hungarian Rhapsodies


text:
Krupanj

Krupanj (Крупањ, ) is a town and municipality located in the Mačva District of western Serbia. The municipality has a total population of 17,295 inhabitants, while the town has a population of 4,429 inhabitants (2011 census).

Geography
The town lies in western Serbia, at the southern border of the Pannonian plain and Mačva region. It is surrounded by the mountains Jagodnja, Boranja and Sokolska planina, in a valley intersected by several rivers and creeks. In the town itself, the rivers Bogoštica, Čađavica and Kržava conjoin into Likodra, which later empties into Jadar. The town lies at the altitude of 280 m.

The municipality area covers around 242 km², and it encompasses 23 villages. It is the center of the region Rađevina, which was named after Rađ, a knight of Prince Lazar, who defended it from Hungarian and Ottoman conquerors, and who is buried at the monument of Rađev Kamen.

Settlements
Aside from the town of Krupanj, the municipality includes the following settlements:

 * Banjevac
 * Bela Crkva
 * Bogoštica
 * Brezovice
 * Brštica
 * Cerova
 * Cvetulja
 * Dvorska
 * Kostajnik
 * Krasava
 * Kržava
 * Likodra
 * Lipenović
 * Mojković
 * Planina
 * Ravnaja
 * Šljivova
 * Stave
 * Tolisavac
 * Tomanj
 * Vrbić
 * Zavlaka

History
Already in the Roman period, the mining was developed in the modern Rađevina area. In the Middle Ages, mining was resurrected with the employment of the Sasi mining engineers, while the main buyers were the Ragusans. The name 'Krupanj' was first recorded in Ragusan records on 27 July 1417. At the time, it was a silver mining site, frequented by Ragusan merchant caravans. Lead ore with a high content of silver was excavated at the Postenje and Jagodnja, and then transported across the Drina river, where it was melted in Srebrenica, which was a major silver processing center in the Balkans. This process also gave name to both settlements: larger lumps of ore were called "krupa" (hence, Krupanj) while the Serbian word for silver is "srebro" (Srebrenica).

According to the Ragusan papers, in the first half of the 15th century Krupanj already had a court and both the Catholic (Saint Peter and Paul) and Orthodox church (First Krupanj church in Dobri Potok). The settlement was quite developed when in 1459 fell under Ottoman rule with the rest of the Serbian Despotate. In the first wave of conquest, the Ottomans razed down the entire town, which was then rebuilt from scratch. Medieval remnants include numerous stećci with many bas-reliefs which points out to the Branković dynasty.

The Church of Dobri Potok (Dobropotočka crkva) at the town's outskirts, which is devoted to the Holy Ascension of God-bearer Mary, was first recorded in 1528 in Turkish records, making it the oldest preserved church in the Podrinje area. Built in a traditional style, it hosts a number of records and monuments from Ottoman Rule and the 'Serbian Liberation wars' period. It is surrounded by a small ethno-park with several chapels and museum rooms.

The town was first liberated in the First Serbian Uprising in 1804 by the hajduks company of Đorđe Obradović "Ćurčija". Vojvoda Maksim Krstić and count Krsto Ignjatović were leaders of the defense of Krupanj during the uprising. The first basic school in the town was opened in 1837, and the church of Holy Ascension was built in 1842. The Ottomans ultimately withdrew in 1862, and the nearby fortress called "Soko Grad" was torn down, to be turned into the monastery of St. Nicholas.

New, intensive mining period began in 1870, and lasted up to the 1960s. Focus was shifted to antimony, while production of zinc, silver, sulfur and iron ultimately failed. At the end of the 19th century, a lead-antimony smeltery was founded in the city. During World War I, a battle between Austria-Hungary and Serbian forces was fought at the nearby site of Mačkov kamen, the peak of Jagodnja mountain. A charnel house or memorial church is built in memory of the event 1930 when the bones of both Serbian soldier and Austrian aggressors were buried in the same ossuary.

Town's hospital was donated by the benefactor Nikola Spasić, Daily Politika donated the cultural center, in memory of its founders, brothers Darko F. Ribnikar and Vladislav F. Ribnikar, who were both killed in action in this area, fighting off Austro-Hungarian invading forces in 1914, during World War I. There are also court building, police building and hotel "Borac".

During World War II, in the village of Bela Crkva, partisan Žikica Jovanović Španac killed two gendarmes on 7 July 1941, which would become the official date of celebration of the people's uprising against occupiers in Serbia during communist rule. On 26 September 1941, a meeting of partisans' main headquarters, presided by Josip Broz Tito, was held in the nearby village of Stolice. A monument and memorial park were built after the war, celebrating the event. As the town was one of the centers of the Republic of Užice, it was burned to the ground by German occupiers in late 1941, with only a few buildings surviving.

During the war, antimony mining in Krupanj reached a peak, as German occupational forces pushed the smeltery to the maximum. Not counting the sickness, local population had no benefits from antimony production, before or after the war. Instead, they were mostly employed in agriculture, husbandry and forestry. The especially produced plums, which as prunes were exported even to the United States. Some 30,000 m3 of wood yearly would be collected from the Boranja mountain.

In the second half of the 20th century, all mining activity ceased. Founded in 1957 in Loznica, cellulose "Viskoza" factory became one of the largest companies in western Serbia by the 1980s. Several companies in connection to factory were founded in time in Krupanj. After the collapse of "Viskoza" in the 1990s, all industrial activity in Krupanj halted also. By the early 2020s, operational were only few micro-companies in wood industry, and one small textile factory, founded in the late 2010s.

Krupanj was affected by significant flooding in May 2014. Many houses, roads and a bridge were completely destroyed.

Demographics
According to the 2011 census results, the municipality has a population of 17,295 inhabitants.

Ethnic groups
The ethnic composition of the municipality:

Economy
The following table gives a preview of total number of employed people per their core activity (as of 2017):

Tourism
There are two hotels in the town center. The Church of Good Creek is a preserved building of traditional sacral architecture. Several historical monuments from the World Wars include the ones at Stolice, Mačkov kamen and Cer mountain. The monastery of Tronoša and the ethno-park in nearby Tršić preserve the memory of Vuk Stefanović Karadžić, a 19th-century reformer of the Serbian language.

At the site of Mačkov kamen there is also a small ski resort. The area has some hiking and biking, and the creeks are rich in fish, especially trout; there is an organized fishing ground at the site of Zmajevac. Several sporting grounds (including a sports hall and Olympic-sized open swimming pool) offer support for sports tourism, used by sport clubs from Serbia and nearby countries.

A religious, three-part ethno-complex of Dobri Potok Church Park is built in the linden forest north of Krupanj, including the Church of the Feast of the Ascension. Forming of the complex began in 1987, though some edifices are much older, and some are in town itself. The lower, Mother of God Park includes the Church of the Dormition of the Mother of God (mentioned in 1528) with belfry and vault, a museum, paintings gallery and reception venue. Close to it is the underground Church of Saint Procopius in the former mining shaft, jointly with mining, pedagogic, hunting and beekeeping exhibitions. There is also a church dedicated to the Jugović brothers and a drinking fountain. The upper, Saint Sava Park, there is another underground church, dedicated to Saint Paraskeva, and the reconstructed village household from the 19th century. The third is a recreational Park of Archdeacon Stephen. Museum "Old Mansion" with a restaurant is in downtown Krupanj.

title: Krupanj


text:
User talk:Zocky/Table syntax

Nice concept! On susning.nu they use spaces to do justifications. | text| will leftify |text | rightify, and | text | or |text| centrify. —Sverdrup(talk) 20:56, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Simple syntax for simple tables
I've dreamed up a simple, yet quite useful syntax to enter tables into articles in User:Zocky/Table_syntax. Please look at it and comment there. I'd like to hear some thoughts before I make it a request. Zocky 00:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * How is that different from what's already done? m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables. Angela. 00:59, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Mine's simpler and less powerful, and as such, not needed. It is better looking, though, especially for col and row spans. How come I've never seen one of those used in an article? Zocky 01:09, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * This format is less than a month old, so very few articles use it yet. —Noldoaran (Talk) 01:32, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * I like Zocky's format alot, it is simple enough for me. The HTML format of tables is actually horrible, and as such actually misfitting in the wiki concept, with simple, fast and easy to remember syntax. I favour Zocky's syntax because it is similar to that of my home wiki's and actually Zocky's "howto use this syntax" page is a lot better. Look att than media wiki article!(m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables) It expects me to know HTML, and comes with only few examples. Un-wiki and not simple. We should really strive to simplify the table syntax.
 * I understand that this was what we wanted to do when we added the | pipe syntax described at meta, but I have to say that I favour this even more. —User:Sverdrup|Sverdrup(talk) 17:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

A thought about rowspans: their most sensible use (apart from formatting) is classification. It's not unlike bulleted and numbered lists. Wouldn't it be nice if this produced an expected table? (This is somewhat different from the syntax on my page). Zocky 23:07, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 |mammalia ||carnivora |||canis ||||dog|house|woofs| ||||wolf|woods|yelps| |||felis ||||cat|house|meows| ||||lynx|woods|hisses| ||rodenta |||ratus ||||brown rat|sewer|squeaks| ||||black rat|middle ages|plagues|

 * I like Zocky's format too. I find the one adopted just as confusing as regular tables. In fact, I am not going to bother to learn that, but rather stick to tables. Dori | Talk 23:18, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

 * Yep, it's still the same commands, but with different words. And they still expect you to know the HTML syntax to learn the simpler one. No, we need a truly easy way of creating tables. —Sverdrup(talk) 00:06, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You don't need to use HTML now. See m:MediaWiki User's Guide: Using tables.

If you type you get

Angela. 03:44, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I'm sure they're aware of that, it's just that that syntax is direct shorthand for HTML and they (and I) think it doesn't provide sufficient automagic. If you want to do even relatively minor stuff, you have to fall back on HTML attributes. The syntax of those is questionable: TD attributes are strange enough, but TABLE and TR articles look eerily unwikilike: there's unmarked text which is not displayed. AFAIK it's unique in that.
 * Also, providing an easier syntax for fully formatted tables (which the current syntax does succesfully) may not be a Good Thing. If one is needed (seldom), there's always HTML, and others should use standard formatting. Next thing you know we'll be having a revert war over the shade of blue.
 * My syntax is much more obvious and wikilike, and the hierarchical table thing is very useful and IMHO, really pretty. Too bad I didn't have an internet conncetion at home two months ago. Zocky 04:18, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think the current method is a "direct shorthand for HTML" and I certainly disagree with the notion that you need to learn HTML before using it. It doesn't seem any harder to learn that what Zocky is proposing. The new way of creating tables makes it visually clear how the table is going to look even when viewed in wikitext and seems a lot easier than worrying about lining up the right number of ||||'s. Angela. 06:32, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Well, worrying about the number of |||'s is just as complex as worrying about the number of ***'s and we seem to do that just fine. And the current syntax is direct shorthand for html:

Nothing wrong with it so far. But try to make a country info table without falling back on HTML attributets. Or try to insert brown bear, honeybee and coyotte in the upper table using the current syntax and see how straightforward it is. Zocky 14:25, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Zocky/Table syntax


text:
User:Obelix (usurped)

$$

{num \over den}

$$

title: User:Obelix (usurped)


text:
File:Lawn Boy cover.jpg

Summary
Cover of the Phish album Lawn Boy.

title: File:Lawn Boy cover.jpg


text:
Lawn Boy

Lawn Boy is the second studio album by the American rock band Phish. It was released on September 21, 1990, by Absolute A Go Go Records in the United States, with distribution by Rough Trade Records. The album was reissued on June 30, 1992, by Elektra Records.

The original Absolute A Go Go compact disc release featured "Fee" from the band's debut album Junta as a bonus track. The album was certified gold by the RIAA on July 7, 2004. The Elektra Records reissue was remastered by Bob Ludwig and does not include "Fee".

The songs on Lawn Boy include many progressive rock and fusion elements featured on the band's first studio album, Junta, as well as incorporating elements of bluegrass, jazz and barbershop quartet.

According to Phish Archivist Kevin Shapiro: "'Lawn Boy was recorded and mixed at Archer Studios in Winooski, Vermont, in 1989 and 1990 on 16-track 2' tape and was mixed to 1/4' stereo reels. The band won the initial studio time with a first-place Rock Rumble performance on April 21, 1989, at a downtown Burlington, Vermont, club called The Front. The Lawn Boy sessions that followed consisted of mostly live takes with a few effects and overdubs. Engineer Dan Archer acquired a baby grand piano specifically for the recording, Fishman played his drums squeezed into a vocal isolation booth and the band utilized local musicians including members of what would soon be called the Giant Country Horns. Like Junta before it, Phish self-produced Lawn Boy on a hands-on level, surrounding the console for group fades without aid of automation.'"

In February 2009, Lawn Boy became available as a download in FLAC and MP3 formats at LivePhish.com.

JEMP Records released Lawn Boy on Record Store Day 2013 as a Limited Edition Deluxe 2-LP vinyl set. The LE Deluxe 2-LP vinyl set was limited to 7,500 individually numbered copies and was created from the original 1/4" stereo master reels with lacquers cut by Chris Bellman at Bernie Grundman Mastering. Each LP is pressed onto 180g audiophile grade vinyl. Deluxe packaging includes an 8-page photo booklet and an etched D-side.

Personnel
Phish:
 * Trey Anastasio – guitars, lead vocals, arranger
 * Page McConnell – piano, organ, backing vocals, co-lead vocals on "My Sweet One" and "Bouncing Around the Room", lead vocals on "Lawn Boy"
 * Mike Gordon – bass guitar, backing vocals, co-lead vocals on "My Sweet One" and "Bouncing Around the Room"
 * Jon Fishman – drums, vacuum cleaner, backing vocals

With guests on "Split Open and Melt":
 * Giant Country Horns:
 * Joseph Sommerville, Jr. – trumpet
 * Dave "The Truth" Grippo – alto saxophone
 * Russell B. Remington – tenor saxophone
 * Christine Lynch – vocals

title: Lawn Boy


text:
Talk:New wave music

Typical instruments issue
Although there are hardly any direct sources for New Wave (since the genre's definition is very vague) you can see by looking at many artists that practice New Wave, that a primary typical instrument is the Electric/Bass Guitars, which are typically not included in Pop genres. The thing I noticed from certain editors to the page is that they are making the genre seem more of a synonymous term for Synthpop, which is not true. Pet Shop Boys, for example, ran solely on Synthesizers, hence being called Synthpop and not New Wave. However, bands such as Duran Duran and Talking Heads ran primarily on guitars, hence being described (in some sense) as "New Wave". My suggestion is that Electric/Bass guitars be included in the "typical instruments" section, due to research from bands classified as "New Wave" and to separate the definition from that of Synthpop. - Somebody told me, you had an Airplane Master (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

EDIT: An unrelated thing I just noticed was that the article states that New Wave was inspired by 1960s pop, as stated on the Pop Music article itself, "Pop" and "Rock" were roughly synonymous in the 1960s.

 * I have always had a problem with the parameter "instruments" in the infobox of musical genres, as if there is any musical genre defined solely by its instruments. Imagine a rock song without electric guitars: you would have "I'm Free Now" by Morphine, "Changes" by Black Sabbath, and many more. The guidance at Template:Infobox music genre is very thin... It only says that we can write down "The instruments that are popularly associated with the genre", and it says that filling out the parameter is optional, meaning it's okay to leave it empty.
 * This makes me crazy. What are typical instruments of new wave? It depends on the song, the band, the particular concert, etc. Some new wave songs have piano, but many don't. Plenty of new wave songs have electronic drums instead of an acoustic drum kit, but we are not telling that to the reader in the infobox.
 * It's my stance that the infobox should only have very simple facts in it. If the facts start getting complicated, then they should be moved out of the infobox and described in prose in the article body. We should have a paragraph in every music genre article describing the typical instruments.
 * I would rather see an empty "instruments" parameter here. The instrumentation of new wave is not simple. Binksternet (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that "typical instruments" is a rather useless parameter, not just for new wave but for virtually every music genre, and should be removed from the template. ili (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From a British perspective the comment about Pet Shop Boys, Duran Duran and Talking Heads is on the right lines, with that early clip of Duran on the Whistle Test (before they became very much just a New Romantic pop band) fitting in quite well with all the other punk and new wave acts on the programme. Synthpop bands were called synthpop because most of them 'ran solely on Synthesizers' (and proper synthesizers with knobs, switches and twiddly bits not just electric keyboards) though you might see synth drums and a bass, as - unless you are a fan of Level 42 - the rhythm section is not really important in the pop history of synth v guitars...more of a punchline to a good muso joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

British New Wave and Synthpop
On wiki there are articles for British jazz, British hip hop, British soul, British rock music, British rock and roll, Britpop, British rhythm and blues, British pop music and British popular music...now if there are so many differences between what the terms new wave and synthpop mean to people in the UK and USA, shouldn't there be articles about these popular genres viewed only from a British perspective, maybe called British punk and new wave and British synthpop (with obviously no hyphens used). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.173.247 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Song Suggestions?
Break My Stride - Matthew Wilder RoakleyTheBirb (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

The Smiths?
Wasn't The Smiths one of the most influential/best know "New Wave" / "Alternative" bands? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.189.248.62 (talk) 03:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

 * The Smiths are influenced by the hardcore punk scene so no they don't count as New Wave. They are better described as Alternative Rock as Alternative Rock is influenced by Hardcore Punk, not traditional 70s Punk. New Wave Rock is rooted in 50s rock n roll. The Smiths music isn't based on 50s rock n roll. FreakyBoy (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

 * "The Smiths are influenced by the hardcore punk scene"... this is so flabbergastingly wrong I can't begin to list the ways it is wrong. The core of The Smiths, Johnny Marr and Morrissey don't list any hardcore punk bands as their influences. See Johnny_Marr where the closest to hardcore punk is maybe The Velvet Underground and that's a long stretch. As for Morrissey, I don't see how Dusty Springfield, Sandie Shaw fall in the punk category, but I guess you could say he was influenced by Talking Heads, the Ramones, and Blondie, but not so much hardcore punk. --Anonymous 75.226.100.219 (talk) 03:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing part of the popularity in the US section
Does anyone have an issue with the removal of this paragraph from the Popularity in the US section:
 * An African-American "new wave" also arose in the US in the late 1970s and early 1980s, driven, according to AllMusic, by "drum machines, synthesizers and programming [becoming] common studio tools". Following the minimalist approach of Stevie Wonder and Parliament-Funkadelic, post-disco explored the electronic and experimental side of African-American music by incorporating Jamaican music, electronic art music, jazz, blues, and in the latter years European and Japanese synthesizer music. Expanding disco music, post-disco took many forms, such as the rhythm and blues-based NYC boogie, the post-punk–based alternative dance, the underground-club-culture-centered Chicago house with its own style of dance called jacking, and futurism–leaning Detroit techno. According to Afrika Bambaataa ("Renegades of Funk") and Arthur Baker, embracing new wave, synth-pop music was influential to both underground and mainstream black dance music electro, dance-rock, and Minneapolis sound.

I'm personally very confused by this paragraph's inclusion in the article. From what I can tell, this is about post-disco which already has its own Wikipedia article. User:ILIL your thoughts? Editingpersona (talk) 23:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

 * I'm just as confused. ili (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Rename and break-up origins/etymology and scope section and Popularity in the United States
So I've been editing this article for a class I'm in the past few weeks, and one thing I think would really help the article improve is to rename the "Origins/Etymology and Scope" section to a "History" section broken up into the early 1970s, mid to late 1970s, and 1980s. I've done this (as well as some changes to the Characteristics section that I've somewhat implemented in the article already) in a sandbox draft in case anyone has any suggestions/thoughts. I've also done the same thing for the Popularity in the US section, which is also in that sandbox draft.

From what I can tell, this article isn't super active, so I'll probably implement these changes sometime tomorrow unless anyone replies not to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editingpersona (talk • contribs) 01:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Well... It needs to be noted there's been a longtime semi-consensus that the article (barring perhaps the lead) needs to be blown up and rebooted, so any efforts made at "saving" it in its current state are futile. I intended on writing a completely new article that relies primarily on the books Are We Not New Wave and Rip It Up and Start Again, then going back to the current revision to see if there's anything salvageable, but I simply haven't had the time.
 * If you're up to that task, Rip It Up has two editions available on Archive.org. Likewise, you can download an Are We Not New Wave PDF on Library Genesis. Maybe there are also other useful books about new wave out there. ili (talk) 15:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @ILIL So I've thought about this for a bit and while I agree that the article's content definitely needs some work and I'm okay with helping with that, I don't think trying to improve the article in its current state is necessarily futile for a couple reasons. 1) Blowing up the article is going to take a while and the changes I proposed in my sandbox draft can be implemented right now. And 2) I think the changes I proposed in my sandbox draft could be a useful framework that gets carried over to the future article. I essentially just tried to organize the section similarly to the Synth-pop article.
 * So I'm just going to go ahead and implement the changes I proposed in the sandbox draft. At the very least they're an improvement to the article that will help until the time is taken to blow it up. Editingpersona (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled upon this article now and would also like the add that the lede is a mess. Primarily, it suffers from the problem common to articles on genres, that it spends too much time talking about different usages of the name. Wikipedia articles are on topics not words. We need to decide on a definition of "new wave" and make the article about that. Article for other definitions can have their own articles. Ashmoo (talk) 11:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you just stumbled onto this article now, then you probably should have read past the lede before editing it to reflect your original research. If you took the time to read the sources cited in the lede, then you would find that no one actually agrees on the definition of "new wave". Editors are not truth-finders. If the sources describe new wave as a loosely defined genre, and they do not agree on a single definition, then this website has no business insisting on a single arbitrarily chosen definition, per WP:UNDUE: Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority is as significant as the majority view. If you want your preferred definition of "new wave" to be dominant, Wikipedia is not the appropriate avenue to do so.
 * "Articles for other definitions can have their own articles"? – This is a particularly confusing suggestion. What exactly are you proposing? That we split this article into New wave music (X definition) and New wave music (Y definition)? ili (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New Wave Is Still Around
Some of the content in this article looks as though it is in the mindset of someone from the late 90s/early 2000s. New Wave never went away, and if anything most pop music today sounds more like new wave than anything else. Avalon2k41 (talk) 20:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. If you would like to change the contents of this article, you should find some WP:Reliable sources saying that new wave is still around, and WP:CITE those sources when adding more explanation about the current state of things. The best sources are from musicologists, music critics, and professional journalists. Binksternet (talk) 22:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Proto-New Wave? Lothar and the Hand People
Should Lothar and the Hand People's 1968 cover of "Machines" be included in some way shape or form, the only outlet that has ever talked about it presaging new wave is cracked magazine. To add on, I doubt the song was influential if at all, but it exists in its own bubble as being incredibly ahead of its time.

It sounds like DEVO and the Flying Lizards years before they'd start. https://www.cracked.com/article_19094_6-songs-that-were-decades-ahead-groundbreaking-music.html Aradicus77 (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 * @Aradicus77 Cracked is not reliable. Tireauclaire (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, a vast amount of music is wrongly labeled as 'New Wave'
After making some substantial improvements to the page itself, I've noticed that a vast quantity of artists, albums, and singles are mistagged as 'New Wave' on Wikipedia, often with no source attached. Those that are sourced usually come from shoddy, offhanded references to a particular artist/record as 'new wave' in poorly researched, often irrelevant articles from contemporary web publications not specialised in music journalism. If Wikipedia's editors are going to claim that a vast amount of music is 'new wave' which was never considered as such in the time and place in which it was produced, they ought to at least be aware of how the music was actually described by contemporaries. Of course, there is little, if any, primary source material which would agree with their claims, which is precisely the problem. If Wikipedia is going to accurately record history instead of rewriting it, I'd challenge my fellow editors to look harder, for better sources, and to remove inaccurate descriptions of 'New Wave' to refer to 80s pop music wherever they should come across it. Smash-Hits78 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

 * You're proposing that we stop summarizing the literature which says "new wave" and instead follow your lead in re-interpreting sources, or in choosing to ignore or minimize the ones that are not in line with your ideas.
 * You repeatedly removed the new wave genre from Culture Club, and you were reverted. Good sourcing exists to support the group as new wave. You can't dismiss James E. Perone's Listen to New Wave Rock!: Exploring a Musical Genre, page 52, or AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine, or MTV News, or New Wave: Image is Everything by K. Adams writing "...new wave at its height... with bands like Duran Duran and Culture Club..." There's also Professor Theodore Cateforis putting Duran Duran and Culture Club into the new wave category in his book Are We Not New Wave?: Modern Pop at the Turn of the 1980s.
 * Obviously, we have many sources to draw from, and a difficulty arises when sources are in contradiction. The best we can do is tell the reader about contradictory themes, naming one or more authors as representing the contradictory views. But we should never decide for ourselves that one segment of the literature is wrong. Binksternet (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Just want to say Smash-Hits78 is absolutely right. Never ran into him on my previous account Janglyguitars (which I foolishly locked myself out of), but he seems to have been pretty spot-on in his edit history. The fact is that 'New Wave' was not used in the context that it appears in on so many pages here related to 80s British pop, and it is anachronistic and wrong of Wikipedia to display such disregard for historical truth. I wrote about this issue more on the talk page for New Order, but this is an issue plaguing so many pages that it almost seems a hopeless endeavour (though I shall do my best). Jinglyjangle (talk) 05:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Having repeatedly encountered inappropriate categorisations, as New Wave, of UK bands, I came here to find if anyone else had raised the issue so it's no surprise to me that it has been. I'm not sure if this is a WP:WORLDVIEW issue, in that perhaps a much broader or just different US usage of the term is being employed (are all the sources noted above American?), or it may be that the term has started to be applied in a way that it was not at the time. The notion of Culture Club or Duran Duran, in their pomp, being referred to as New Wave seems alien and bizarre. Examples such as Ultravox are more along the lines of unnecessary pigeon-holing; it's not the worst of potential fits but it's at best superfluous. As noted, if a source has coined the term in relation to a band, it's hardly going to be possible to counter that with a source saying they're not of that genre.
 * It's different, in that the term was in contemporary usage, just not for many of these acts, but there are similar with pestilential rerospective coinings of spurious supposed genres, such as sophistipop and yacht rock. Likewise, British invasion/second British invasion is only that from one part of the world's perspective, and by definition not that of their place of origin. On reflection, maybe reliable sources have written about these differences in categorisation or miscoinings? Mutt Lunker (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Most sources I've seen are American, yes, though I've sometimes seen some contemporary UK sources call things New Wave that no UK source would have done forty years ago. I think Wikipedia, combined with lazy journalists, probably has a lot to do with this. Yet another reason, if one were needed, to lament the death of the physical music press in favour of online 'journalism'. Just imagine, forty years ago, being told that next century the NME would include ABC, Duran Duran, and Culture Club records on a list of the greatest 'New Wave' albums. Agreed 100% on the sophistipop nonsense as well (in both cases, I always want to scream 'It's just POP!').
 * I have seen some sources mention the 'alternative' usage of New Wave, like this article (blog post?) by Mark Simpson where he refers to 'Early ’80s British synthpop — or “new wave,” as it was known in the United States', before himself adopting this particular usage through the rest of the article (if only I were so flexible). And here, Simon Reynolds refers to 'what we in the UK called New Pop — in the US people talked about New Wave or New Music or Second British Invasion'. On Wikipedia itself, in fact, the issue is noted in this section of the New Wave article, with a quote from Andrew Collins illustrating the discrepancy. I think it does that pretty well, but the problem remains of all the miscategorised music. And I do think it's fair to call it a miscategorisation, rather than just a different point of view, based on how the music was actually described by American critics at the time, as opposed to how it was popularly (mis)understood. Returning to that section in the New Wave article, it pretty clearly lays out what leading critics like Christgau, Bangs, and Eddy thought, and they more or less echo my own. The distinction would seem to lay in how critics and the music industry wrote about music, versus how some in the American public saw things. And interestingly, this division is sort of evident in the article itself, with the 'History' section basically corresponding to the critical/historical view and the 'Popularity in the United States (1970s-1980s)' section going according to the 'popular' idea. As an encyclopaedia, ostensibly based on reliable written sources, Wikipedia should doubtless give preference to the former, and were it to actually rely on what was written (rather than what was apparently said, by some) it would inevitably give more weight to the (rather more informed) view. Unfortunately, since some editors prefer to consult authorless articles, obscure podcasts, and fan pieces over the work of actual music journalists (who might, you know, have been there or written a thing or two), we get a lot more of the other side. So it goes, so it goes.
 * I've started a longer discussion about this issue, by the way, over at this page, if you'd like to comment there (not sure if anything will come of it, but I'd appreciate your support nonetheless). Jinglyjangle (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Dating new wave - let's try this again
Ok, @Binksternet, I thought I was done here and erased my account information (including password) but I saw you reverted me, so gonna do these last few things and then we're done.

Let's have a look at the sources. Nickson, a UK source, has a section "New Wave music in the 1970s" and says the genre was overwhelmed at the beginning of the 80s by the New Romantics. He makes no mention of new wave in the section for 80s music, except on one of the indie pages by mentioning how new wave guitars inspired the indie bands. On the other hand, AllMusic, a US source, says new wave was "during the late '70s and early '80s" and died in 1984. Cateforis, a US author whose entire body of work on new wave is heavily focused on America to the exclusion of any other country, says in his "Death of New Wave essay" that the new wave period was "sometime in the late-1970s to the mid-1980s". Ok. Now for a few more.

Robert Christgau and Lester Bangs, both of whom covered new wave heavily in the 70s, say the genre was ending or had ended as the 80s began and lasted anywhere from one to three years. Chuck Eddy, who wrote for the Voice in the 80s, says it was already over by the time of new pop bands' popularity on MTV (so, the early-mid 80s). Andrew Collins, in his piece for the Guardian, offers the formation of Duran Duran (1978) and the breakup of the Jam (1982) as two possible ending dates. He then splits the difference basically by saying Elvis Costello, new wave's patron saint, had abandoned the genre by 1980 but that it continued in the US until 1986 or later. The owner of CBGBs said he thinks of 1974 as the beginning of new wave.

Clearly there is no consensus here. If we want to be more specific than just 1970s-1980s, the closest we could nail it to would probably be "mid-70s to early 80s". It's clear that going by the sources used in the article, and attempting to have an opening sentence that isn't biased to one country's perspective over another's, new wave is about equally associated with the 1970s as it is the 1980s, if not a little more with the former. However, it's better to air on the side of inclusivity and summarizing the literature, presenting all points of view, so the inarguable best solution is to say 1970s through the 1980s.

As for the reverts you made on synthesizer, Blitz Kids, and Second British Invasion, I'm not going to let you pretend that was anything other than pointless dick waving. You know how to read an article and click on a source, you know what constructive versus disruptive editing looks like, and you know perfectly well what overreaching and being disingenuous look like. An apology would be nice, but I know that's too much to ask for so ceasing to revert what are self-evidently well-supported and non-tendentious edits (like the "genre that uses the synthesizer as the main instrument" being associated with the synthesizer) would suffice. If you can do that we'll be done here, I can't speak for jinglyjangle or anyone else but after this I want no further part with this website ever again. Black Hand 1914 (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

New Wave of Germany (Deutschland)
Yes Germany has too many New Wave music in the 1980's but as we all comprehend' it is sang in an International English Language like Milli Vanilli from Germany to London, New York East Coast to and later the West Coast. 103.224.94.25 (talk) 21:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

 * Is there a change you're hoping to make in the article or something? Sergecross73   msg me  00:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2024
"if you smell bad we dont like you " -Greenday 2601:98D:C200:1810:BAA5:37C5:D57:B7CC (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jamedeus (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:New wave music


text:
Talk:Liquid Tension Experiment

Untitled

 * Describing Tony Levin as simply a "session musician" seemed a little tame. Part of the commercial interest in the LTE project (as well as Black Light Syndrome) was the fact that the other members got Tony Levin, of all bassists, to agree to participate.  Sure, Levin does a lot of different projects, but his cultural significance stems most readily from his work with King Crimson. Pillsbur 21:04, Dec 18, 2003 (UTC)

Writing period
Both albums were written in a very short period of time... It took five days for LTE and something like ten days for LTE2, if I recall correctly. I've read this in the CD booklets (but lost both cases afterward...). Can someone confirm this ? --Zoury 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

 * You're right. Acid Rain alone was written in two hours, others written and recorded in the same day. According to the CD booklet, the tracks were recorded as early as October 11, 1998, and November 29, 1998. It looks like most were written and recorded really close together... Justabaldguy 01:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There was post regarding a new LTE album by Portnoy himself http://www.mikeportnoy.com/forum/tm.aspx?m=1503093&mpage=2&key=, and he seems to have regained interest in a third LTE album.

Wrong Kansas link
When it says portnoys second pick for guitarists, it mentions someone who was in Kansas the link on the word leads to a post about the state. I'm certain theyre talking about the band Kansas. Someone fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.49.199 (talk) 05:25, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Liquid Tension Experiment. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716150258/http://www.dreamtheater.net/tourdates.php to http://www.dreamtheater.net/tourdates.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131109230925/http://www.metalsludge.tv/?p=30330 to http://www.metalsludge.tv/?p=30330
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050408055200/http://www.mikeportnoy.com/about/mpfaq/default.asp?menu=about&fldAuto=1 to http://www.mikeportnoy.com/about/mpfaq/default.asp?fldAuto=1&menu=about

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liquid Tension Experiment


text:
Verbunkos

Verbunkos, other spellings being Verbounko, Verbunko, Verbunkas, Werbunkos, Werbunkosch, Verbunkoche; sometimes known simply as the hongroise or ungarischer Tanz is an 18th-century Hungarian dance and music genre.

The verbunkos is typically in a pair of sections, slow (lassú), with a characteristic dotted rhythm, and fast (friss), with virtuosic running-note passages. In some cases, this slow-fast pair alternates at greater length.

The name is derived from the German word Werbung, a noun derived from the verb werben that means, in particular, "to recruit"; verbunkos—recruiter. This music and dance was played during military recruiting before the Habsburg emperors, who were also kings of Hungary, introduced conscription in 1849. A group of a dozen hussars performed the dance in different parts, with the leading sergeant opening with slow movements, then the lower officers joining for more energetic parts, and the youngest soldiers concluding the dance with jumps and spur-clicking.

Despite its name, the melodies originate from Hungarian folk and popular music and have been sometimes attributed to Romani people (Gypsies), because the accompaniment was usually played by Romani musicians in characteristic Romani style.

The Romani composer János Bihari (1764–1827) remains the most well-known composer and interpreter of verbunkos. Eighty-four compositions of his remain. Bihari was a violinist who played in the court in Vienna during the entire Congress of Vienna in 1814. Another composer of verbunkos was József Kossovits (d. c. 1819).

With the establishment in 1837 of the Hungarian National Theatre in Pest, the verbunkos style began to change under the influence of the first director of the theatre and operatic composer, Ferenc Erkel, whose most successful operas were Hunyadi László (1844) and Bánk bán (1861).

Haydn incorporated verbunkos into the "Gypsy Rondo" piano trio, composed in 1795. Béla Bartók's Contrasts (1938), a trio for clarinet, piano and violin, is in three movements, the first of which is named Verbunkos. His Violin Concerto No. 2 is also an example of verbunkos style.

Slovácko verbuňk
The Slovácko verbuňk is also an improvised folk dance in the South Moravia and Zlín districts of the Czech Republic, and was inscribed in 2008 on the Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity of UNESCO.

title: Verbunkos


text:
User talk:209.232.148.110

December 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fudge, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 17:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Trenton, New Jersey. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at League of Nations, you may be blocked from editing. SQGibbon (talk) 18:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at List of victims of Nazism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. SQGibbon (talk) 18:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Passerine, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=474456161 here]. Wiki13 (talk) 20:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Irvine, California. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. tedder (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Woodbridge High School (Irvine, California), you may be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Woodbridge High School (Irvine, California). Wiki13 (talk) 18:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

April 2013
Hello, I'm Lugia2453. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Carrot cake, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Lugia2453 (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Irvine, California. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Containment. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — MusikAnimal talk 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wienerschnitzel with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Jsharpminor (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm DerHexer. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:06, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Woodbridge High School (Irvine, California), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks,  Yinta n   21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Woodbridge High School (Irvine, California) with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.  Yinta n  21:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

May 2014
Hello, I'm SQGibbon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cuauhtémoc Blanco because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Latin American culture. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Vieque (talk • ctb) 21:58, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2014
Hello, I'm SQGibbon. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Quadriceps femoris muscle because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! SQGibbon (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

February 2015
Hello, I'm Babitaarora. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Babita arora  16:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Babita arora  16:53, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Italian propaganda during World War I. JSpung (talk) 16:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Draft:Princess of Armenia- Marian Sahakyan, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Rankersbo (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

February 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Multituberculata. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   19:01, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

March 2018
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Scatman John, you may be blocked from editing. - Nott Nott  19:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2021
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Jeanne Calment—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Serols (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm HelenDegenerate. An edit that you recently made to Nanny of the Maroons seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Helen (💬📖) 22:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Woodbridge High School (Irvine, California), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Hello, I'm -Alabama-. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Ocean storage of carbon dioxide—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. -Alabama- (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ocean storage of carbon dioxide. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I'm SQGibbon. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Culture of Belgium have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 05:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Hello, I'm Victor Trevor. An edit you recently made to Maximus seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, the sandbox is the best place to do so. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Victor Trevor ( talk ) 22:05, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Xenia (Greek), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 07:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:209.232.148.110