Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Talk:Anticon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redid some stuff...

[edit]

I just made a fairly sizeable edit, although in actuality, it was really just a ton of small (slightly nitpicky) edits. Basically, I:

  • Rearranged, reworded, rewrote, and expanded stuff
    • Redid intro section, almost rewrote whole thing
    • Updated and expanded projects section
  • I updated the "current roster"
    • Took out artists who haven't released stuff in a long time (not really "active" anymore then)
    • Added a few artists who've recently become "active" by releasing new material, and added new artist (sole and the skyrider band)
  • Updated "See also" section
    • Added Abstract Hip Hop link, put it on top (since it links back to anticon, and also links to several other labels similar to anticon, like Def Jux and Rhymesayers)
    • Added link on Indie rock, since some of the material anticon has put out recently is indie rock

Hopefully nobody protests these changes too much. If you disagree with something I did, please don't revert the whole edit; change the individual thing yourself.Shnakepup 06:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closely associated?

[edit]

In the list of artists that "are or have been closely associated with anticon", it lists Mike Patton. What has he done with anticon.? I was interested to hear it and did a bit of searching and couldn't find anything. This would surely imply he wasn't "closely associated".Febodyed 13:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would seem i didn't look that hard. still, the album that doseone and jel are on isn't out yet (if i'm right) and i'd still say he wasn't closely associatedFebodyed 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Patton appeared on Odd Nosdam's Burner. That alone probably doesn't constitute "close association", but it's something. — TheJames 14:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Dosh? He is with Anticon as much as the others... how do you define that list?

Mike Patton has worked with anticon artists and vice versa, Peeping Tom, Mike appearing on Subtle remixes - touring, and Mike gave them exclusive rights to release the Peeping Tom vinyl. They are friends. Darc Mind had a reissue via anticon, but it was more fandom within the label than any prior association that led to this. They and Boards of Canada probably have the most minimal on paper/project related association with Anticon, but the loabel does generally work with alot of like minded artists and usually not just once. More info on Anticons somewhat 'morphing' from an indie hip-hop like collective into an actual alterno 'label' should be included here. The whole article really does need a facelift though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.211.70.122 (talk) 11:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alias & Ehren

[edit]

Should Alias & Ehren be in the list? --Anthony5429 14:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made an article for Alias, and also did an album article for Lillian. Hopefully that is good enough...Alias did more a collaboration with Ehren. It's not like they're a group or anything, like Themselves. Otherwise, "Themselves" would just be called "Dose one & Jel".Shnakepup 16:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concure. Group or just a collaboration, Alias & Tarsier deserve some attention as well. LetterGo 03:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo.anticon.jpg

[edit]

Image:Logo.anticon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo.anticon.jpg

[edit]

Image:Logo.anticon.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaching Quiet

[edit]

Should Reaching Quiet be listed as formerly on the roster? Their article claims they "released Split EP! on Anticon under the name Why? and Odd Nosdam." --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Mush Records. 118.6.121.168 (talk) 21:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That does not help at all. Of course they should appear on Mush Records. My question was if they should not appear as former artists of Anticon since they released an album with Anticon as well (according to their own article). Alternatively, their article can be fixed to say they did not release it with Anticon. --Muhandes (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
hey, muhandes, you don't have to edit the article if you know nothing about anticon. and you should do the research yourself before asking questions like this here. 118.8.149.204 (talk) 09:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your wise editing suggestions, I'm sure I will find them as beneficial in the next four years of editing as they would have been beneficial in the last four years of editing. However, you did not answer my question at all. There is a contradiction between the article Reaching Quiet which says the band released an article with Anticon, and the article Anticon which does not release them on the "former artists". Either one of them should be fixed. --Muhandes (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
im NOT definitely blaming you, Muhandes. but a discussion like this is a waste of time, not only for me, but also for you too. you can spend your time to edit the articles youre familiar with, at least interested in.
by the way, yoni and david are founders, owners and artists of anticon. they released a split ep on the label. however, the duo didnt released album as reaching quiet. read the article of Reaching Quiet carefully. it doesnt say "reaching quiet released album on anticon." i know its complicated. i hope you understand the mechanism... 122.26.187.139 (talk) 16:25, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that if Reaching Quiet lists Anticon under Label, Anticon should list Reaching Quiet as artists. That's how it works with any other label article I've seen, and I've seen dozens of them (and thousands of album articles). But I don't care enough to argue this anymore. To clarify things, I added the fact that a split EP was released by Anticon to this article as well. --Muhandes (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sole

[edit]

i just corrected the record on why sole left, and who started the label. it is often said that "everyone" is a co-founder and in reality the label was started by sole and pedestrian and didn't become incorporated until 2003(legally it is a corporation not a collective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.227.45.218 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 August 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the source about "the label was started by sole and pedestrian and didn't become incorporated until 2003." Please do not add any information without reliable sources. --122.26.254.96 (talk) 04:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Kayo, you're skating a very thin line here. I'm not pursuing a range block because you've been editing constructively, even though you are acting in defiance of Wikipedia policy. I hope you keep it up. Chubbles (talk) 06:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anticon. 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, 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) 08:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anticon. 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, 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) 13:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anticon&oldid=1198819919"