Talk:Discipline Global Mobile - Wikipedia

	Discipline Global Mobile has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 21, 2012 Good article nominee Listed April 12, 2012 Peer review Reviewed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on March 25, 2012. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile has the policy that copyrights belong to artists and consequently does not own even its corporate logo (pictured)?
Current status: Good article

Template:Maintained Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

• ... that the music company Discipline Global Mobile has the policy that copyrights belong to artists and consequently does not own even its corporate logo (pictured)?

• The DYK hook shall run on 25 March 2012. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:59, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

• The DYK generated 5090 visitors on 25 March 2012 (the anniversary of Guitar Craft). The article had 3788 visitors, and Ball's knotwork received 1302 visitors. Thanks again to Mark Arsten for his great GAN-review, which suggested many many improvements!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Terms of service of DGM Live! prohibit links to all pages save the DGM Live! homepage.

1.2. Copyright.

The Site Content and Site Code are owned by DGM and/or the associated music publishers and are protected by applicable domestic and international copyright laws. Copyright © 1983-2012 DGM. All Rights Reserved. Unless expressly permitted elsewhere in the Site by DGM, you shall not ... link ... any of the Site Content or Code, in whole or in part.

Links to the Site, other than to the Home Page, are only permitted upon express permission from and arrangement with DGM.

(Emboldening and italics added)

I have requested that WP be granted permission to link to pages within DGM Live!

Since that request has not yet been granted, this article links only to the main page of DGM Live!

Respectfully,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

We're not bound by those ridiculous ToS, and should ignore them. Anyone clicking on a link sends a request to the host server for a page, it's up to (the owner of) that server to decide how to respond. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Quite correct, see Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com. Framing by link can be prohibited, but simple linking cannot, as it does not mislead what the source is, and takes the user to the copyrighted material freely offered by the copyright holder, in the manner the copyright holder chooses to configure their server to give them. Deep linking can no more be prohibited than referring someone to a specific page in a book can be. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:29, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I consider DGM's request to be polite and reasonable. Nobody has stated that they have any trouble using DGM's search facility with my explicit titles. Thus, I don't see any reason to change my practice when I write my text with my references.

Andy and you can go around and add things to my copyrighted text if you must, per CC 3.0. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:43, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I consider DGM's request to be evidence of a crass lack of professional competence by the webmaster and/or lawyer who made it; ether way, it has no bearing here. Your comment about the DGM search feature is a straw man. You've done the damage, removing existing references from several Wikipedia articles, with no policy and no consensus to support it; you should fix it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Disruptive editing

WP policy apparently does not prohibit editors from adding more detailed urls, if they wish to violate the terms of service of DGM.

Just add the urls. Do not tag-bomb and disrupt this GA-status to prove a point. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:17, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Nonsense. The less detailed URLs are incorrect (as not supporting the material), and should be removed. I'm not deleting them, because it's likely there is a more detailed URL. The alternative is to tag them all with {{broken link}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I would add that use of the link to a website (as opposed to page) to support material is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and the material can be removed. I'm commenting them out, rather than removing them, as I believe the material is there, but it's not my job to find it. Perhaps a GA review based on the mislinking would be appropriate.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arther, use the preview facility before saving. You messed up the formatting, leaving the references with broken links and stray []'s.

In other words, you don't care enough about the article to add urls, but you do want to destroy the urls which do work and easily allow readers to find the pages. Again, nobody has yet stated that they have any difficulty finding anything at DGM. How long does it take you to find the page? 2 minutes? 5 minutes the first time? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

An alternative would be to:

1. Remove the pseudo-links [__link__ text]
2. Tag all the links in {{cite web}} or {{cite book}} as {{broken link}}, as it doesn't lead to the material.

I think commenting out the link is less disruptive than what should be done by a literal reading of the guidelines.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Arthur,

You couldn't even comment out the links without fucking up that simple task. I begin to understand why you have trouble finding urls. Try to use preview, and if you notice that you are fucking up an article again, don't press save. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I suspect one of the citation templates which I commented out has an invisible comment, or you added the inappropriate invisible comment in the citation template, which I missed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

You messed up the references and didn't even notice. Now you want to blame me for your suspicions. Why don't you take responsibility for your mistakes? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Please respond to the question. What is the difficulty? How long did it take you to find a page the first time you looked, using the detailed date and title information in each of the notes. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:47, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Space reserved for Arthur Rubin': Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out to you more than once on the regrettably on-going VPP discussion, that question is a straw man, and has no bearing on this matter, .Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Such editors do not "violate the terms of service of DGM", never having agreed to them, and such palpably unenforceable and unreasonable conditions not being binding. You have already been advised of such at WP:VPP, where not on editor is in agreement with your position. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Andy, you have been advised of the discussion at WP:Copyright infringement, which you failed to link, which had a consensus of informed opinion. You not only failed to link to that discussion, you also misrepresented the consensus there. Your battleground and misrepresentation with your chums at the Village Pump are unfortunately consistent with the editing behavior for which you were previously banned for one year. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

As I told you a while ago, I have read that discussion, and the consensus which you claim from it does not exist; and so does not support your esoteric and damaging edits to remove or exclude URLs from references. It is also clear that subsequent discussion at [{WP:VPP]] has consensus against your view. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Your misrepresentations, even if they were limited to this case rather being well documented over years, remove your authority even further than your lack of writing. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

KW, Andy is correct here. You've been told that at VPP, you've been told that here, you were told that at a previous discussion. Deep linking cannot be prohibited, and any such terms in a ToS are unenforceable and meaningless. Bringing up any history is irrelevant. I don't know Andy or you (I recall seeing both your and his name before, but don't really know anything about either of you), but even if Andy is the worst editor here, that's an ad hominem. Here, Andy's assessment is right on the dot. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seraphimblade, for somebody who doesn't "really know anything", you write a lot. We have no policy requiring deep linking in every case, even when prohibited by the ToS. Andy wants to pretend that we do. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That comment is a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Would you prefer that Andy consciously and deliberately repeats that falsehood? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

That too would be a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Uh, KW, on what basis would you say I don't "really know anything", or for that matter that I've written more than you have? And we do have guidelines stating that source citations should be as detailed as possible. When we cite a journal or magazine, we cite the specific issue and article, the date, and the page number. When we cite a book, we cite the specific page. When we cite a website, we cite the specific webpage. We don't any more cite "It's somewhere on this domain" for a website than we would cite "It's somewhere in The Journal of the Foobar Association". The journal or book can't prohibit us from doing that, even if a notice in them says they do, and a site owner can't either. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Sid Smith's book In the Court of King Crimson is out-of-print. Would a reader check whether it has pertinent information, please?  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 13:10, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks to editor The Rambling Man for his great suggestions!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm responding to your request for a copy edit, and it would be silly of me to try to make drastic changes to a Good Article. The idea here is to fix style issues that may exist, and to improve the article's flow and readability. This won't be done in one session: I've started, and will be coming back to it over the next couple of days. The biggest challenge that I see is to avoid the redundancy of repeated sentences that begin with "DGM". That fatigues the reader, but to avoid it is easier said than done. Dementia13 (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Journalists are cautioned to remember the story about bananas that avoided tiring the reader by employing "elongated yellow fruit". ;)

 Kiefer.Wolfowitz 05:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Dear Dementia13!

You have proved yourself a worthy master (and perhaps grandmaster ...) of the Wikipedia's Guild of Copy Editors.

Your copy-editing has been surprisingly good, even better than I had wished. You removed a lot of distracting hyperlinks, which our intelligent readers may be trusted to investigate without blue text. You also improved the focus of the article by removing extraneous information many times. Only in a few cases, do I have reservations, and even those I recognize to be matters of taste. Thanks again for your great copy-editing.

Warm regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 10:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

If there's anything you have reservations or questions about, please speak up; I might be able to accommodate these. Keep in mind that many things are dictated by Wikipedia style or generally accepted style and are not negotiable, but you'll at least feel better about those if you get an explanation. A couple of comments/questions:

1) Unless you have research that states otherwise, "Fuzz Ebow guitar" is not a kind of guitar, is not a proper name, and doesn't get capitalized. "Fuzz" and "Ebow" are two different things, neither of which needs a special type of guitar to be used. "Ebow" is a playing technique, and as a brand name is a capitalized proper noun. "Fuzz" is a generic type of effects device, and isn't capitalized unless you name a specific brand, like "Big Muff π". I added links for both.

2) A few of your sentences have endings like, "wrote Acton". Unless an editor or peer reviewer gave you a reason for doing that, you're better off not to name-drop. The citation should suffice. The problem for me, as a reader, is that I see that and ask, "Who is he and why should I care? I've never heard of him. What makes him an authority?" I don't see where it's a good idea to draw attention to the names of authors that you cite, unless they are subject authorities whose names will be recognized by a great number of readers. A positive example is to mention that a source was published in Billboard, because that's perhaps the most important publication in the music industry. Dementia13 (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

No response heard over several days, so I'll consider this complete. One caution, if you're grooming this for a FA nomination, which I believe that you are. When I looked at the DGM website's "About" page, which is linked to in this article, the information seemed to reflect a different state of the company than your article depicts. The material on the DGM site is ten years old, but most of your references are around fifteen years old. Looked at another way, this article only covers one third of the company's history. I suspect that you need more information to achieve FA status, and I think that there's a danger that some of the information already present is outdated to the point that it's no longer true. You'd do well to dig up some sources that are more current. Dementia13 (talk) 16:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Thanks for your efforts.

I know of no reliable sources discussing the current state of DGM, or its state over the last 10 years. I searched on HighBeam, JSTOR, and Google Scholar. I don't believe our policies or my editing practice allow me to write a section based entirely on DGM entries. I assume that a search for DGM and TigerShark (the company dumped by FaceBook, etc.) would produce more information.

I prefer to edit to improve the articles. FA and GA status is a tertiary concern, although the review process is of great benefit in my experience.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:06, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi again!

Let me respond briefly.

1. Style: You changed the American singular for DGM to the British (Empire?) "they", which I find annoying. This issue is a headache in every article with British/American bands. I suppose that I should try to rewrite the "they" in a way that avoids irritating either Brits or Yanks.

2. "Acton" or "Martin". I named the author only when the opinion strikes me as likely to be regarded as a personal opinion rather than a fact. Given your encouragement, I shall remove such in-text citations, and let the footnotes suffice.

Thanks again for your help.

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thanks for your response.

You are correct, DGM is a valid source, but you can't lean too heavily on a primary source. You've probably reached a dead end if you can't get a result from the databases that you named, unless there's a business or legal database with some information, and you're not likely to find anything that would be worth the effort.

On the first point, I considered that carefully, and on double-check, it might be debatable. Band name and sports team names are "mass" or "collective" nouns, and the rules on whether they take a singular or a plural pronoun are inconsistent. It's not specified how company names fit into this, although AP gives "Brooks Brothers" as an example (they call it "singular", but imply that it's an exception), so I won't throw a fit if you revert references to DGM. When referring to a band, "they" is correct. If their name is plural. And sometimes if their name is singular (the Miami Heat). And unless it is an exception (Coldplay).

Lastly, yes, it may be an opinion, but it's published, and that's good enough for Wikipedia. Ideally, you would have a balancing counter-opinion, but it appears that you've already looked under every rock. It helps that this is neither a controversial subject, nor a biography. Dementia13 (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Isn't DGM logo is endless knot in some way? Should be this added to the article? --Dennis714 (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ball's blog references a book on Celtic knots as the immediate influence on the first knotwork design that first appeared on the cover of Discipline by King Crimson. Do you have a reliable source discussing the first design or Ball's design as an "endless knot"? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply