User talk:For me noc

Welcome!
Hello, For me noc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 19:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

BRD cycle
Hey, I wanted to direct you to the bold, revert, discuss cycle essay in order to facilitate consensus for the Teenage Engineering OP-1 article (and probably others in the future). To copy the "in a nutshell" summary from the page itself: "Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article, or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion with the person who reverted your change to establish consensus." Reverting other people's edits back and forth is considered edit warring, and edit summaries aren't really a useful place to have these discussions. I've started a few threads on the talk page, but since I did not get a reply there for the first one I wasn't sure if you had seen it. Thanks, Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 01:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I'd really like to ask you to stop reverting my edits without any discussion. I would like to reply to the point you made in the edit summary of your last edit, but without the talk page there is no way for me to do that. Please either reply here or start a new thread on the talk page. Information about how to use talk pages can be found here. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 14:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Definition of an octave (basic music theory), software vs hardware (re influence and pertinence), qualifications for editing (knowledge). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what to make of this? As far as the octave issue goes, please see the point I made on the OP-1 talk page; according to your "basic music theory" definition of an octave, the OP-1 is not two full octaves. I am not really sure what you mean by "software vs. hardware", as the OP-1 and Push incorporate both. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 04:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
 * how can someone editing wiki, a musical instrument not know what an octave is? frequency / hertz / cycles per second (A 440 vs A 880 for ex).  OP-1 has two full octaves.  How can someone editing wiki not know this.  How can someone editing wiki not know the difference between software and hardware.  Qualifications?  Wiki articles should be fact based.
 * Again, you explicitly gave a definition of "octave" that suggests that the OP-1 is under two octaves, and this is corroborated by the SOS article I cited, in which Nagle calls the keyboard "just under two octaves". I do know the difference between software and hardware, and the Teenage Engineering OP-1 and Ableton Push incorporate both. If a product has an influence on another product, and it is notable enough to be written about in a third-party source, then it warrants inclusion on the article for both products. You said "One comparison doesnt warrant mentioning when others could be made as well," but I have no idea why that should be true—if other equipment has been influenced by the OP-1, that is an indicator of its cultural and industry significance.
 * I also really disagree with your labeling fixed velocity as a "feature". It is a limitation, and the OP-1 has been criticized for it. Spinning it as a positive is not a neutral POV. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 02:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are quoting an online article. I own the OP-1, am a musician of 30+ years.  Have taken classical music theory as well as commercial.  I have taken music technology courses in college and recording.


 * The discussion about an octave is futile. A 440 vs A 800 if you do not know what that is you should NOT be editing wiki (music related) articles.  This is BASIC / fundamental music theory.  If a frequency is doubled there are two octaves of that frequency.  Tripled would be three octaves of that frequency.  The OP-1 KB has two octaves plus ability to shift upwards +4 and downward -4.  Strange, again wiki articles should be fact based, not cut and paste from online reviews of music gear.


 * Editing and being corrected are not ways to learn about music, instruments, etc. Perhaps take a music reading course, then beginning music theory, take a piano course + more theory.  Buy some instruments, play music, live it and enjoy it, gain knowledge and THEN edit wiki with factual info.


 * Wikipedia is based on fact, and those facts are collected from third-party sources, such as articles in well established music publications like, for example, Sound on Sound. I am sure that Nagle and the editors of SOS have a music knowledge to match your own. While I personally cannot boast 30 years of experience, I am also a musician and sound designer; I have taken music theory courses, and I have done lots of reading and playing. But my personal experiences constitute original research, which is not what Wikipedia is for.
 * I think we are approaching the question of octaves in two different ways: The OP-1 does in fact contain the note F in two octaves, and I am not disputing that. However, again, you defined an octave—and I agree with you again here—as "a series of eight notes between (and including) two notes having twice or half the frequency of vibration of the other". I am ignoring the "eight" here because, of course, an octave can be divided into any number of segments. If octaves are inclusive of the two notes that have the same frequency halved/doubled, then the OP-1 is not two octaves. The keyboard starts at F, and ends on E. Let's say the first F is 2Hz. The second F will be 4Hz, and 2Hz to 4Hz and the notes in between comprise an octave. However, the final note, E, will not be 8Hz, it will be below. How can a movement from 4Hz to under 8Hz be considered an octave?
 * You have not replied regarding the Push, so I am assuming that is fine to re-add. But also, please not that changing the edit summary when undoing someone else's changes still constitutes an undo, and therefore still does not satisfy the guideline of the BRD cycle. Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 04:18, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not "boasting", just trying to keep OP-1 wiki info fact based. Perhaps someone reviewing gear does have more knowledge, or less.  It is a gear review, for the most part not worth citing there are politics involved in those.  Read the OP-1 manual, that would be worth citing as it is fact.  I dont see a correlation between ableton and TE, they are two dif companies.  Lots of comparisons could be made cluttering and taking away from the focus of this wiki article (OP-1).  Ive used ableton, sat thru an hour lecture on push in a technology course, this article again OP-1.  This entire article should be fact based, not cut and paste from online gear reviews.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  04:30, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As an example you said 2Hz to 4Hz. Please stop editing wiki music based / related articles.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by  04:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * How is indicating the influence of the OP-1 "cluttering"? This is directly relevant to the OP-1. It is no different from talking about the influence that early Casios had on its designers. Whether or not you have used Ableton or Push is not really relevant. And, again, facts are found in third-party sources, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Nothing is copy/pasted, but citing sources is a key part of the process of writing an encyclopedia. Also, I realize that 2Hz is not inside the range of human hearing, but that's not really relevant here. I was using a small, easily multiplied number for the sake of a hypothetical example; I could have just as easily used any other number, but I chose not to for simplicity's sake. How does that affect my ability to research musical instruments and write about them? Boomur &#91;☎&#93; 05:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This discussion seems futile, going on and on. All been said already. 2Hz suggests not knowing. 440 is easily multiplied by 2 to get an octave above at 880Hz. This entire discussion is strange. Wiki articles should be fact based. Citing online gear reviews (AGAIN) those (some most) are influenced by politics. Why not cite the operating manual? Credible sources are crucial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)