User talk:Echoedits67

Yo I seen u add lots of cool stuff on RYM for 60s-70s microscenes, have you ever looked into Brown Acid, Freak-Out music or New musick? Aradicus77 (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I haven't heard of brown acid and freak-out music only in passing, but I was looking a bit into new musick recently. Thanks so much for adding it as a separate page on here, it will make researching it and potentially adding it much easier.

Tbh I always thought it was just an old name for post-punk, but recently I started realising that it might genuinely be its own thing? What I've read on the page so far seems to confirm that so far. And in Rip It Up, Reynolds calls it the "industrial/dystopian science fiction" side of post-punk. Echoedits67 (talk) 15:27, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Other cool microscenes you might be interested in is the Lower East Side scene. I found a few sources on google books naming it so I might see if I could make a draft page some day soon.

To my knowledge, the Lower East Side scene was what birthed "avant-garde rock" or "avant-rock". Earliest exponent was Andy Warhol's band the Druds, but it was a bunch of rock and roll bands intertwining with the local contemporary art and beatnik scene. At times heavily tied to the label ESP-Disk' (Not sure if Free Jazz acts would count as part of the scene as similar to no wave, think it'd be a confusing one to add because people could argue that scenes such as no wave and punk also began on New York's lower east side, but the sources I found seem to explicit refer to the Fugs and VU)

Lower east side acts were the Velvet Underground, the Fugs, Godz, Cromagnon, David Peel & the Lower East Side, Silver Apples, the Holy Modal Rounders, Pearls Before Swine, the East Village Other, Henry Flynt, Emerson's Old Timey Custard Suckin' Band (Maybe garage-psych acts such as Blues Magoos n the Deep / Freak Scene even). Aradicus77 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Psychedelic folk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bastardisation. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Echoedits67. I just wanted to let you know that if you ever get tired of correcting edits containing original research from user Aradicus77 (in the post-noise article, for example, as you seem to be doing now), you can ping me, and we can both present evidence of repeated violations of the second point of disruptive behaviour to ANI. I'm not looking for conflict with anyone, but Wikipedia is not a place where facts can be persistently misinterpreted by one user, even if they act in good faith. Editing Wikipedia requires competence. Buf92 (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

This is now against the rules. Getting other editors to gang up on a user is unacceptable. The complaints you have are purely peripheral. You say you had to "clean up" the shoegaze page, as if it was me who wrote it. You noticed I was one of the few users to push back at some of your edits and now have completely tagged me as your enemy. Buf92 has had an issue with me for ages and now is trying to make it look like I'm an original researcher. The articles I create are very niche. I thanked EchoEdits for all his additions but Wikipedia asks you to be WP:BOLD if you want to add stuff. I never had issues with him generally, the only main problem was the "2000s" thing. Digging up dirt and witch hunting users isn't how you get your way. Aradicus77 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello, @Buf92,

I have indeed had issues with some of @Aradicus77's edits breaching WP:OR recently.

However, I've only been editing here for a short while, and don't know whether these edits are part of any longer-running pattern or not, so I've been trying to resolve matters through following the steps outlined in WP:DR, including initiating discussion on talk pages and waiting to get a WP:3.

In that light, I don't think I'm the right person to comment on any disruptive behaviour beyond what I've written on the Talk:Post-noise page regarding specific WP:OR edits. However, if you'd like, please do weigh in on the dispute on that page if you'd like to provide a WP:3. Echoedits67 (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Freak folk, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Feistadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

I’m stepping away from the Freak Folk article for a few hours because things have gotten a bit chaotic, with edits being added and reverted simultaneously. I noticed that some content I added with reliable sources, like Pitchfork referring to Current 93’s David Tibet as a “freak folk impresario,” was removed without explanation. You said you want to expand parts like Bunyan so I'll let you do that for now. I’m getting the sense that you have a fixed perspective on what the genre should represent rather than focusing on the reliable sources available (i.e moving around mention of American Songwriter stating the genre emerged in the 1970s and changing the influences section from reaching to the 1990s when Pitchfork cites Tibet). The redundancy as well of duplicating sources like the New York Times source that is already cited to add to the bibliography section also makes no apparent sense. There are a few books that cite freak folk that haven't been added yet. The use of adding books to the article is to use the SFN citation format which makes it easier to cite pages from book sources and improves readability. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:33, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally remove the Current 93 part, I may have accidentally erased it in an unrelated revert though, I'll look through the diffs.

I am summarising what reliable sources are saying. The bulk of what I've added is from histories of the genre from secondary sources like Jeanette Leech's book or Stereogum's recap.

I moved the American Songwriter source from the lead to a different section because one opinion from one not very relevant (to freak folk) publication shouldn't be in the lead. The lead must be for things the relevant reliable sources agree on, not niche opinions. I think WP:UNDUE is highly relevant here. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:45, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

It still didn't fit in the characteristics section because it was about the emergence / history of the genre. But you might fix that later on. There are a lot of "open web" sources that are not on the article yet, like many discussions in Pitchfork and a few books. The article is already getting pretty big even without that so it shows its a very extensive topic. I'd expand the lead later on to reflect this. Aradicus77 (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, I believe I actually removed it from the lead, you included it under Etymology, and I moved it to Characteristics. Okay, maybe it doesn't fit that well under Characteristics, but it sure doesn't under Etymology either. It's not about the etymology of the term 'freak folk' at all, it's about the development of the genre itself. Therefore, perhaps there isn't an appropriate section for it yet, but Characteristics seems the least wrong at this time.

Yes, it definitely is an extensive topic. The rejection of the term by the 2000s artists is likely a big part of that because there are no real gatekeepers of the genre and publications are free to take it in any direction they want. Echoedits67 (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New wave of new wave, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mod was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2026 (UTC)