# Talk:Discipline Global Mobile

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)
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)

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
In addition to Andy's comment (which I agree with), I would also point out that DGM's request is neither polite nor reasonable. There is nothing polite about legal threats (that's the "Violators will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible" line that KW intentionally omitted to make it look less insane). And there is nothing reasonable about the request either, because linking is the nature of the web, and can be used in numerous ways using today's technology. Therefore, anyone can violate DGM's terms without even knowing it, by using various online services that are available in the 21st century. And then they will be "prosecuted to the maximum extent possible"... But KW has been explained that numerous times before, and his ongoing attempts to distort the history of this discusion are getting really disturbing. Anyway, DGM's crazy request should be ignored and full URLs should be used. It is quite clear that this is the consensus here.—J. M. (talk) 06:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
J.M.,
Why are you posting this today? Full urls have been added to the article (of the encyclopedia), following the wishes of Arthur Rubin, who at least has tried to edit this article. Please review the history of the article to avoid superfluous suggestions.
Ordinarily, when I encounter hortatory, accusations, or  moralistic preening, I suggest that a talk-page titan actually do some work improving the article. However, crawling precedes hopscotch. Please translate your talk-page entry into standard written English.
Kiefer.Wolfowitz 08:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I see no full URLs added to this article.  If full URLs have been added to other articles, please provide diffs.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 11:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Your edit summary, Arthur, was rude. You will not be saved from bad faith by the addition of diffs. I don't add diffs when talk-page activists would learn by reading and thinking, preferring to write articles than documenting trivialities known to anybody paying attention.
Adding links to DGM here may increase the flow of readers with good-willed interest in DGM, which may not be objectionable. Adding urls to DGM from Grooveshark may increase the flow of petulant punks to DGM, wanting to complain that Grooveshark represents a new form of doing business and DGM needs to evolve to an even more mobile intelligent unit which provides music without charging anything.... I should have foreseen the consequences of writing freely. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
With some exceptions in regard WP:BLP, the effect of adding links should not be considered, only the value of the material sourced and the links to the article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Please see my previous comments on hortatory and on taking responsibility, Arthur. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
You've made a statement. Its veracity is doubted; and you've been challenged to substantiate it. If you continue to refuse to do so, it is not unreasonable for people to conclude that you cannot, and that your statement was false. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
The correct conclusion is that you two apparently couldn't be bothered to check the articles already discussed, and you apparently haven't bothered, even after I just pointed them again for readers without sloth. A reasonable person would again examine your  ArbCom case, including your yearlong ban and other sanctions, which documents your editing behavior, and understand why I don't condescend to waste my time with you, since urls have already been added, for better or for worse, by editors interested in improving articles.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


### 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)

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)
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)
Arthur, 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)
An alternative would be to:
Remove the pseudo-links [__link__ text]
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Space reserved for Arthur Rubin': Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I found the problem.  The text had references within references.  I don't know how to fix it, though.  And you now, in the guise of deleting me, have removed some material which is still actually sourced.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I did not delete you, Arthur. :) I deleted what now appears to be an OR statement without citations, which you have now restored. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Andy,
If Arthur states that I have made an error, then I would probably strike the offending statement (as being at best badly expressed), but your expertise in the practice of logic does not seem to be better than the usual WP-participant's level of competence. Please understand that a broken record stuttering "strawman" does not advance the discussion. Above, Arthur at least stated a relevant proposition, about the consideration of consequences, correctly noting it as a fundamental issue on which we disagree, which at least gave me something to think about. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:25, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
That comment is a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Would you prefer that Andy consciously and deliberately repeats that falsehood? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:13, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
That too would be a lie. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
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)
Please read your previous statement which contains the phrase "really know anything". ;) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

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)
WP:BLUE applies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps you can find a reliable source discussing Celtic knotworks and endless knots, and add it to either or both knot articles. You might look at discussions of Bain to see whether he was influenced by endless knots, and summarize  any such discussions in the relevant articles, which are linked from here. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the following image under NFCC#1 (replaceable): [3]. Kiefer's restoration rationale ("illustration of article") also fails NFCC#8 (decorative). The text can clearly describe the conflict with Grooveshark without inclusion of a nonfree media file. Regardless, however, nonfree media is presumed unacceptable, and would require consensus for inclusion. As such, it must remain removed during the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Your initial removal had this summary, "rm nonfree (WP:NFCC#1, the text explains this just fine, we don't need a screenshot for "proof"."
Please explain or withdraw your edit summary. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have misunderstood the policy, which I quoted in the edit summary when I restored the image. Screenshots are allowed for critical commentary. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 22:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
They are allowed for critical commentary on the screenshot itself or where it shows something directly related to it, such as showing a screenshot of a computer program's UI to give a reader what it looks like in operation. They're not allowed for critical commentary of tangentially related subjects. We can cite a reliable source that uses the screenshot in that way, however. My edit and rationale above was clear—"Discipline Global Media was involved with a dispute with Grooveshark because..." explains to the reader perfectly well that the dispute exists and what it was over. The screenshot does not appreciably add to that, and our method of "proof" that such dispute exists or that X did Y is not to use nonfree screenshots, it is to cite good sources. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Discipline Global Mobile. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120302061103/http://www.dgmlive.com:80/about.htm to http://www.dgmlive.com/about.htm
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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Discipline Global Mobile. 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/20111123003659/http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/101311cc to http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/stories/101311cc
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) 18:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)