User talk:Mojosynths

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --EivindJohnsen (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mojosynths. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mojosynths. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Korg PS-3300

Hello! I noticed that you recently reverted my edits on the Korg PS-3300 page. I’d like to discuss these changes and explain why I removed much of the content, so we can hopefully agree on how best to update the page. The main issue is that a significant portion of the page's content appears to be unreferenced or based on original research, which is against Wikipedia's guidelines. To meet Wikipedia’s standards, information must be verifiable through reliable sources. Additionally, many of the existing citations are problematic; for instance, several references link to YouTube songs, forum discussions, Instagram posts, or auction listings, none of which are considered reliable sources for Wikipedia. For example, the reference for "The Resonators can be heard in all their glory on the Space track Blue Tears" is just a Youtube link to the song "Blue Tears", where there is no mention of the PS-3300, so this is a failed verification.

Let me know what you think, and please let me know which bits of info were incorrect in my revisions, unfortunately I found sources for the PS-3300 to be very scarce, likely as it was such a rare synthesizer. InDimensional (talk) 22:49, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been 7 days and you haven't responded so I'm going to revert once again. Please feel free to correct any factual errors. InDimensional (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@InDimensional Agreed, there are definite problems in this article of original research and synthesis (no pun intended!). Mojosynths, you appear to be very knowledgeable on this subject, but what you are contributing to this article is not encyclopedic. I encourage you to engage on the talk page and help improve the article. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above editors. Engage on the talk page please.—Alalch E. 22:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Mojosynths Your approach of refusing to discuss edits and repeatedly reverting is unhelpful and likely to get you blocked. You are also displaying signs of ownership. In your edit summaries you demand constructive editing from others, but so far have refused to enter any discussion addressing concerns about the article raised on the talk page. How are other editors to achieve consensus about constructive edits if you will not engage with them? Collaboration is how Wikipedia works and you are showing no signs of being willing to do this. It does not have to be this way. If you genuinely want to see a good article on the Korg PS-3300, please read what other editors are saying about its problems, and join the discussion. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 07:24, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —Alalch E. 07:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Korg PS-3300. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. It's seems you now want to play a game of "spot the error". Tagging the article as containing errors, but refusing to say where they are, is childish disruptive editing that is all about you demonstrating you know best, rather than about improving the article. If you do not want to help improve this article then stop editing it. If you want to demonstrate your knowledge, then please help find sources for accurate information. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and moving forward

Hello! Firstly, it would be much easier to communicate if you would reply to these messages directly instead of through the edit summary. It makes it very difficult to track the conversation.

One of your edit summaries says you believe the article has been vandalised. While I did remove a lot of content, it was to bring the page in line with Wikipedia policies, including ensuring that all the information on the page is verifiable and removing anything that I believed was original research. Some other less pressing removals were due to what I believed to be overly technical information, a Wikipedia page should be more of a summary; and some instances of bias in the writing, where a Wikipedia page should be written in a neutral tone.

Your edit summaries have also mentioned that the page now has factual errors. This may very well be the case, as I was unable to find a great deal of references for this synth, possibly due to its rarity. I think the best way to move forward would be for you to go through the new revision of the article and highlight all areas that you believe have factual errors. We can then rectify them, and look for new supporting sources, or simply mark them as needing references. That way, we can find a nice middle ground between the previous revision of the article and the new revision of the article, which I believe will result in a better Wikipedia page.

If you continue to revert the page without discussing the changes on the PS-3300 talk page, not through edit summaries, then this could result in your being banned for edit warring, which would not be productive and would not help the PS-3300 article. InDimensional (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]