Talk:Backmasking/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Backmasking. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

References

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have done some formatting on the references. I added anchors to the books in the bibliography section and used the sfn and harvnb templates to generate references to those books that are linked to the books. I have done some minor tweaking on a number of other references. In doing so I have a question, should the quotes/notes in the references be split out into a notes section and the notes section now renamed footnotes? Speaking of the quotes, they are not attributed to the speaker for the quote in Aldridge 1991 (I assume it's Lennon but haven't verified that with the source) or the one in Giuliano & Devi 1999 (who is being quoted?). Another question, shouldn't the articles have first word only capitalized per MOS? I have also marked the reference "Panget, 173" with the full citation needed tag. I don't find Panget anywhere else on the page. - - MrBill3 (talk) 15:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

external link problem

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

I have moved this to the Backmasking talk page as suggested. Thanks.. - - Juggantic

If you think the external link you added and I removed from the article Backmasking is notable I suggest finding it mentioned in publication and finding a link other than a FaceBook page. If you feel the article needs improvement I wholeheartedly encourage you to find some reliable sources and make edits based on the content in those sources. In the future please conduct discussions about WikiPedia on the talk pages of the appropriate article or a user talk page such as this one, not via email. Thanks. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Typical Skeptic. lol No offence in that by the way. OK. You say "If you think the external link you added and I removed from the article Backmasking is notable I suggest finding it mentioned in publication and finding a link other than a FaceBook page." I will never in my life time find anyone that would find that link to facebook notable. I am not wanting to enter into Wikipedia a link to facebook.

I was making a external link pointing out a device called The Original Syn that is used to reverse records as to be able to access backmasking. I think there is room in the article for it too, but not trying to do that at all, just linking to it as it is an invention that is specifically for backmasking. It is a patented item, not a person or some gossip from a chat room, and there is no other place that publicly displays this item.

Thanks.. - - Juggantic

First, see External links (EL): Links normally to be avoided item 10. A link to FaceBook is not appropriate. Second, I was not suggesting you find a reliable source (RS) that found the FaceBook link notable, how about an RS that finds this "device" or "invention" notable. If there is "no other place that publicly displays" or discusses this item it is not of interest enough to warrant an external link per EL. Third once an edit has been reverted it is not appropriate to redo the edit without discussion and consensus on the talk page of the article see BOLD, revert, discuss (BRD). Fourth opening your comment with an ad hominem attack on another editor is not the best way to present your case. Please focus your comments on content and editing not editors.

All that said, I'm not so worried about it. If you think you can make a case for including a FaceBook link to a product that is mentioned nowhere notable, by all means engage in a discussion on the talk page of the article. Perhaps others are familiar with the product and know of another site/source featuring/discussing it. Best wishes. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I had wanted to include this into the external links in the backmasking page The Original Syn— An invention that reverses records to listen to hidden messages or backmasking After reading I did find that It can or might be able to be used as it is only for display at this page as I do not allow it to be put online anywhere else and it is an official page that does not sell or advertise and is just showing the product The Original Syn and nothing else. I because facebook has one billion people on it thought that it was actually the best place for it. I sell them in real life only and not at facebook at all. Just testing if I can link it to this product or not? The patent was granted and it has been used on RRR radio in Victoria. Australia about 1994 but has never to my knowledge been in a article or anything like that at all. So can I use this link to the official facebook page or not? Thanks - - Juggantic —Preceding undated comment added 11:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia doesn't like linking to anything but the item, I will remove the links to other places and just leave the links to Wikipedia and the one picture of the device and if I do anything I will just be replacing it with a different one and will not alter the page one bit. People cannot add comments and post there anyway...The show at RRR was called The Party Show if you are inquiring about it. Hoping this will help, and if this changes you can remove the link if anything is put in straight away. Regards - - Juggantic —Preceding undated comment added 04:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again MrBill3, was I wrong to assume silence and consensus was allowing me to re-do my original edit and leave it in there or is there another problem with the link? I thought after a week it was OK since nobody objected. i am trying to find some other place for it other than that one anyway. So I wouldn't worry about it being at "facebook" anymore. - - Juggantic —Preceding undated comment added 13:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Policy is that fB links are not appropriate, nor are promotional links added by an editor with a WP:COI. If you find an RS that discusses the product propose inclusion on this talk page and I or another editor will likely add it to the article. A product is not considered encyclopedic in an article unless reliable sources have discussed it. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh well! That sorts that problem out. No one can tell me I never tried. Thanks again anyway and thanks for your time. - - Juggantic —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

In External links (EL): Links normally to be avoided where I get your "Policy is that fB links are not appropriate" from, it also states "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links to:" also. It was an official page too that was not showing anything else there except for "itself" and a couple of links back to this article..No selling/marketing/advertising... you say I am doing this with WP:COI. No, I am the inventor of this product and I had a silly thought I'd go and add it to the article at Wikipedia that's about "backmasking" because that is why it was made for, "backmasking" but will forget about it for now because of what happened with facebook. Thanks anyway.. cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.254.3 (talk) 23:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting: "a link to an official page of the article's subject" this applies to an individual, organization, band etc. I don't think that "Backmasking" has an official page. Being the inventor and a vendor of a product is the precise definition of WP:COI. However as I have said, if the item is discussed in WP:RS post it here and it may get included in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:38, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It was at the time an official page about this invention that reverses records to listen to backmasking, not an official page about backmasking..It would have been the only one about it. I thought I am the reliable source because I am the creator of it and creator/admin of the page and I thought I can also use that to use as a reliable source about it . It's 25 years old nearly and I do not have any intention to sell/advertise/promote it at all at that page or at Wikipedia. Just tried putting a link only to it so people know that there is an invention regarding backmasking, that's all, not even wanting to include it in the article's main thread only because it is specifically for backmasking and thought was relevant to the article here in Wikipedia that's about backmasking....Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.254.3 (talk) 07:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC) Yes I get the part about official and that now and know what you mean, but was only trying to add to the backmasking article about an article that was showing this invention only, that I don't sell or advertise remaining neutral as just being the creator of it and just wanted to include it into this page that shows stuff about backmasking. It would have made no difference to me, only to the article about backmasking. Thanks.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.254.3 (talk) 09:40, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Audio samples

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've moved several of the audio samples to the standard templates used, as these are much more obvious. If anyone objects, please discuss here.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

This article currently has no audio samples. They were removed for not meeting WP:NFCC. A freely licensed audio sample could (and should) be easily created to illustrate the technique in this article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:50, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

FA problems

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I was surprised to see this article was assessed as FA, as it has several unsourced or poorly sourced claims in it. The FA was done 9 years ago and has not been re-assessed since then. The nominator, @Audacity: is still active. The most obvious problems are :

The first paragraph in "Development" is unsourced
What makes loopers-delight.com a reliable source?
Sunshine … Rain … When the rain comes, they run and hide their heads" (listen (info); the last line is the reversed first verse of the song - this is cited to an iUniverse published book, which is a self-published source
What makes religioustolerance.org a reliable source?
In January 2014, the first backmasked video was released as part of a Grammy Awards promotional campaign - this entire paragraph is unsourced
Seattle-based grunge band Soundgarden parodied the phenomenon of Satanic backmasking ... the rest of this paragraph is unsourced
At the end of "Before I Forget" by Slipknot, lead singer Corey Taylor's voice can be heard saying ... this portion of prose is cited to a YouTube link with no URL supplied, and therefore I consider improperly sourced. Also this whole area looks typical of long-term drive-by editing where somebody has a compulsive need to add their favourite backwards message without considering the article as a whole. I notice the nominator has been removing unsourced claims in this area recently, but a little more tightening up is needed.
For live concerts, the guitar parts were played live on stage using a backward emulator - this claim is not properly sourced
Congratulations. You have just discovered the secret message. Please send your answer to Old Pink, care of the Funny Farm, Chalfont... The first line may refer to former lead singer Syd Barrett, who is thought to have suffered a nervous breakdown years earlier - while this is sourced, having brought a few Floyd articles to GA myself, I find this claim to be suspicious (paging Parrot of Doom as Floyd FA expert)
What makes poesienoire.com a reliable source?
The Waitresses' 1982 EP I Could Rule the World if I Could Only Get the Parts.... - this sentence is unsourced
Backmasking was also parodied in a 2001 episode of the television series The Simpsons - this paragraph is unsourced
The group included several backward messages in later albums in response to the accusations. - this sentence is unsourced
What makes TalkBackwards.com a reliable source?

That's just from a cursory look at the article; I suspect there are further issues involved and this needs substantial work to get back up to today's FA levels. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:44, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Also paging @SandyGeorgia: who expressed concerns similar to above in the original FA review in 2007. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I cannot see that it should have been promoted FA, and suggest a FAR in a month's time, unless serious work is undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I wrote the above, the only "work" on the article was some vandalism / test edit undetected for nearly 48 hours. I feel a FAR is inevitable. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:18, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Backmasking. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

"Resurgence" section

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Just about any sound-editing program that's worth using will allow reversal of sound clips. Even Windows Sound Recorder, which is hardly a top-flight editor, allowed this. So why is the "Resurgence" section a plug for one specific editor (Audacity), with the strong implication that Audacity is somehow unique in this respect? It isn't. — 2A02:C7D:419:2500:8D27:89E7:BBAE:3315 (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Backmasking. 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/20060628030930/http://www.jay-chou.net/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2 to http://www.jay-chou.net/forums/faq.php?faq=new_faq_item2

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)