User talk:Etheldavis

Welcome
Previously user Solidsandie - but lost my log-in ID!

Xavierla 2
If User:Xavierla 2 starts making the same sort of unsourced changes to articles after the new block expires, just leave a note on my talk page and I will re-block. Xavierla 2 needs to learn to provide sources and discuss when their edits are reverted, or they cannot edit here. Qwyrxian (talk) 11:44, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hip hop music category
Don't you think that disco never gets the full credit it deserves from anyone  for being musically very influential as much as punk rock is was? You don't need an Allmusic self-proclaimed expert to tell you that hip hop has pre-disco and disco roots alike, Jamaica, doo-wop, funk breaks blah blah you get the picture. I put a lot of time into research for my claims and I am not sure whether you are aware of it but Good Times (Chic song) is a hip hop song but you just suddenly decided (maybe you are the subject expert, I don't know, in which case I will be just glad to listen to your esteemed lesson on why my opinion is false and take it for a fact) and straight up reverted aforementioned category as if disco had absolutely no connection with hip hop beyond some minor almost coincidental exposure which is wrong. Sincerely, ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe Disco is very important. But so do I believe that other genres that pre-date and post-date it are important. Of course, Disco was a major influence on hip hop. But Chic's Good Times was a disco song, which was used for Rapper's Delight, which was an early hip hop song. I believe the two genres are separate but related. Hip hop is, of course, also related to other genres. However, Disco's influence should not be negated and it is not - it is listed, quite rightly, as a stylistic origin. If it wasn't, I would be amongst the very first to defend its place. I have never stated that disco and hip hop are unrelated. I'm no "Allmusic self-proclaimed expert". I just lived through the 1970s and 1980s and was very interested in the popular music of those decades. I read a great deal about them. All I ask of Wikipedia is that all statements are reliably sourced.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2014 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Synthpop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page What Is Love?. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Block evasion
I'm not a block evasion of andrew bf I only wan't to porovide good faith edits to electronic music articles without vandalizing thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.211.89.73 (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Fairfax Media article has been rejected several times before. I have left "electro" as a stlistic origin, but removed your citation. It is not a dependable Wikipedia resource. Please find another citation. Your edits are remarkably similar to Andrewbf, which led to my question.

(Etheldavis (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if my edits are similar but my intention isn't vandalize wikipedia is only good faith edits by providing a source in much possible I wan't to contribute because I know many about electronic music and other genres I wan't too help by removing or adding what I may consider wrong or right

Yes, but if what you consider to be right does not agree with the consensus, please do not keep re-listing it regardless. Wikipedia is the work of many people and not just one author who believes that he/she know best. You can achieve most by working with other editors.

(Etheldavis (talk) 22:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

How could I work with other editors?, and I don't understand how could doesn't agree with the consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 22:53, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

You work with other editors by reading and taking on board different opinions. Consensus means that if editors reject something as being incorrect or an non-dependable resource, then you don't keep re-listing it because you reject their opinions/experience/expertise and wish to "own" an article, simply including what you think is wrong, regardless of the opinions of others. This will often lead to banning.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)) But may I talk with that editors to have an agreement so this wouldn't get into a fight? And I would also like to work in Wikipedia's electronic music project and providing my knowledge about this type of music — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 23:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is not enter into "edit wars". Many editors also have great experience and expertise in various subjects, but Wikipedia always needs reliable independent sources. If editors disagree with your edits, do not enter into an "edit war" and keep reverting. Discuss on the Talk Page, seek alternative sources, but remember this is a group effort and consensus rules. "Edit wars" often lead to banning. Your thoughts about "electro" are interesting, but you need more than a provincial newspaper article (with no sourcing) to support it. Exchanging views in the electronic music project would be a good idea. Good luck with that. But remember, nobody knows everything and we must respect each other.

(Etheldavis (talk) 23:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for your comprehension, I would try to provide an external source to every edit I make and instead of make an "edit war" I would try to discuss it on the talk page only one more question, How could I get into electronic music project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 23:43, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I would go to the Wikipedia Tea House - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse - and ask what is going on with projects. Good luck with that. But please remember, no matter how much you feel you are right, consensus is what matters here and many people are contributing to Wikipedia with a great knowledge of and passion for various subjects. Respect and avoidance of "edit wars" are the key to progress. Good luck!

(Etheldavis (talk) 00:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC))

Hello again, I was trying to make good edits but user binksternet says I don't have the english skills and he es reverting my edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 03:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello again! We'll have a talk on here very soon. I'm tired today as I've just finished work. In the meantime, I replied to your edit about house music being a "sub genre" of electronica whilst I was at the library - sorry, I wasn't logged in. Electronica is a very broad term, known by some as an "umbrella" term. In the sense of modern music, there may be sub-genres of electronica, but house is a genre of electronic dance music. You state that electronica is a stylistic origin of house, and that OK, but it is enough on its own. Any thing added creates confusion.

(Etheldavis (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC))

Hello, I think I'm going to stop editing and leave wikipedia in english though binksternet shows not comprehension and thinks that I wan't to make disruptive editing and that my english skills are insufficient thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andresbfarrera (talk • contribs) 13:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

House music
I'm sorry for the edit war, but isn't finding sources to support your statements isn't adecuate? If I put the statements were my view is supported adecuate? And I repeat all the sources I provided are also provided to the the other genres stated there, so all of that sources are innadecuate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.213.37.100 (talk) 00:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

They must be dependable sources though, and you must find agreement via consensus if there is any doubt on the Talk Page BEFORE making any changes so that further research can be done and a consensus can be reached. This can take time, but you must have patience and respect the consensus. Hurrying in and making lots of changes and then entering into edit wars simply results in banning and nobody gets anywhere.

(Etheldavis (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC))

Yuppie
Thanks for the edit. Although I do not doubt that the word was American in origin (derived from yippy derived from hippy), in many ways, particularly when it comes to the news media and the chattering classes, the centers of London and New York are closer to each other than they are to their suburbs. In those days thanks to Concorde it was possible to have breakfast in London and pre-breakfast coffee in New York. The point I wanted to make is that when it comes to new buss words like yuppie promulgation around the English speaking world tends to happen quite quickly. -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yuppie, not Yuppy. From Peter York, of the The Official Sloane Ranger Handbook. As English as mobile phones. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

That's right, Andy - yuppie is originally American. That was the point I was making at the time. I hope you are well.

(Etheldavis (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC))
 * I think you'll find York's use (very likely in the Harper's & Queen's column, but it might have been The Spectator) pre-dates the US use. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Oh, thanks - I'll take a look! That's fascinating!

(Etheldavis (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC))

World Wide Web raised at WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Inventor(s) of the World Wide Web?. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Curious, what's the point of this? Merely including that template doesn't protect the page, and when the page isn't at all protected, including the template puts the page into Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.  Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)