Talk:Ear training

Memorizing Melodic Sequences

Another neglected area is a method for memorizing unfamiliar sequences of notes. For example, a long guitar solo that a student is trying to transcribe. Interval training is fine but the ability to internalize and recognize a series of tones as "music" is just as important. As one of the posters noted above, internalizing music through listening and ear training is neglected in most acedemic programs. What most teachers call natural talent might be easily learned if these principles where taught.

External Links

To argue for or against a particular link please use this section from now on.

Seriously... isn't that just an advertisement? It should be removed from the article. Bests, Languageleon (talk) 00:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

As much as any link to the Encyclopaedia Britannica you find on Wiki, so I'm sure if you want to remove one, you'll want to remove the other. I'm ambivalent about both (because they do provide useful resources) and if you include this particular link I don't think it should be inline. --Doktorspin (talk) 05:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure. There are people who guard this page against free software and endorse commercial web sites and commercial products. They remove name of free software but retain promotional material. I just don't want to go into in an edit war so added a comment here. Please add Lenmus. It is a free Ear training software which has been translated in 8 languages. My previous additions was removed instantly. --Nevit (talk) 07:25, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read conversation above, WP:NOT, and WP:LINKS. aruffo (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are actually inserting strong bias toward commercial products and against free products. Which is against neutrality of view. --Nevit (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

So as any intelligent person would do you delete all the free useful external links from the article and leave the references to the commercial products. You, sir, are an idiot. I hope you're happy. Well played, well played. Before you complained about the commercial bias the mention of freeware was about even with commercial software until someone deleted all the external links and the references they had, you. The reason no new links are added is Aruffo deletes edits from anyone who tries to add links because he's retarded and thinks computer aided ear training must all be spam and not notable. We've already established if it has links from several edu sites we can call it notable. This comes from the butthurt he has from not being able to post his own website everywhere http://www.aruffo.com/ , which he's spammed in the perfect pitch section. He sells a nice little retarded software to teach perfect pitch even though he hasn't got perfect pitch. I call conflict of interest with aruffo and lack of disclose he's got competition to his product as part of his incentive. He's should not be able to edit this section. 75.53.34.231 (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that he has a conflict of interest with free or open source software. I believe he should be blocked for editing this article or section. --Nevit (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Please read the massive discussion we had under the Promotional Links section, you have to collapse it. It's more than clear he's just against any links being there at all. I've added them back including your lenMus and IwasDoingAlright, which is one of the most recommended I've seen in forums of jazz. lenMus is under GNU so it shouldn't a problem. 75.53.34.231 (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Nevit, I thought from the edit summary you were the one to remove all the external links but it was Aruffo. I misclicked when checking, I should have known. 75.53.40.237 (talk) 22:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To argue for or against a particular link please use this section from now on.

Critical assessment and a call to action

The more I look at this article, the worse it appears. It's not just disorganized (although it is); it's completely devoid of context. I don't think it's a far stretch to imagine that someone coming to this article is asking the simple question "What is ear training?" and this article doesn't do much more than anecdotally blurt forth a scattershot number of examples of activities that various people currently do in the name of "ear training". There's no history, no research, no indication of why any of these different methods exist and what kind of effects they purport to have (or what effects they actually have). There's no description of who came up with these ideas or in which parts of the world they've taken root. There's no description of who thought of ear training in the first place or why someone had to think of it in the first place. There's no cultural comparison (at the least, Japanese ear training is markedly different from North American, to the point where each is literally astonished by the other), there's no timeline, there's no... anything.

Does anyone feel like helping me come up with a new outline for this article? Since I'm currently in a graduate program I have access to plenty of source publications, so once the topics are established I can root around for evidence.

The first thing I'm thinking of is simply the marking point for the origin of modern ear training. The first few things I'm finding point toward the turn of the 20th century, such as this [book from 1898] which seems to be one of the first prominent uses of the term "ear training", this [article from 1900] claiming that ear training is "still in its infancy", and an [article from 1882] trying to persuade teachers that solfege will not destroy their students' musicality.

What should come next.. introduction into schools? Early movements in ear training? Thoughts? aruffo (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what should be done about the list of interval examples. Because there are no objective criteria for inclusion except for the fact of a song's beginning with such-and-such an interval, there are no objective criteria for EXclusion, and if the last few edits are any indication (which they seem to be) the list will just keep growing and growing and growing. Should it be made its own page, as a category? When it comes to the point, only one example of each is really necessary to make the point (it could even be argued that only one example of one interval is necessary). aruffo (talk) 22:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Pure imagination is minor 7th

Not a major 7th 71.64.109.190 (talk) 00:45, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Sounds like a Major 7th to me. Between the words "a" and "world". 220.245.235.235 (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

software

The following statement is looking for citations:

"For example, free and open source software under the GPL can provide many comparable features to popular proprietary products.[citation needed]"

The is a product called "GNU Solfege" which is a free open source software for ear training. From its web site it boast the following features:

   * Recognise melodic and harmonic intervals
   * Compare interval sizes
   * Sing the intervals the computer asks for
   * Identify chords
   * Sing chords
   * Scales
   * Dictation
   * Remembering rhythmic patterns 

I'm pretty sure that meets with the "can provide many comparable features" claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Troyatlarge (talk • contribs) 06:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"However, others have shown that such familiar-melody associations are quite limited in scope, applicable only to the specific scale-degrees found in each melody". I'm not really sure what this sentence is getting at. In what way, exactly, is it saying that the "familiar-melody association" method is limited in scope, and how would an alternative method compare? 220.245.235.235 (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of external links section

Since Wikipedia is not a collection of links and I'm getting tired of reverting the unexplained recent additions of a commercial link by Eartraining, let me propose a fair and principled solution of removing the External links section. What do you think? I see a bunch of products. If a product is notable, it will appear in the article. If it's not notable to the topic of ear training, then it shouldn't have presence in either the article or the External links section. Thoughts? If the user Eartraining is reading this, please participate in the discussion because I may misunderstand the reason you keep re-adding your product's link. Thanks! --Ds13 (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not a product. It is not commercial. It's a free ear training resource with ear training exercises, useful for the ear training process. Eartraining (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is not a commercial page in any way. I have examined it carefully, and there are no affiliate links, no ads, no product is offered for sale on the website, it is just a site with many reviews of free and commercial software. If anyone is interested in buying anything, including the DVDs, books, software etc, if you follow those links, they lead you to external sites and as they are not affiliate links the author of the site won't earn anything from the traffic.

Note though - a good comprehensive external survey site can be acceptable for an external link for a wikipedia article even if it is ad sponsored and the author is earning from it, if it is an excellent survey of the field, as this is. So it wouldn't be disqualified for hosting ads or affiliate links, unless there was also an obvious bias. But this site is clearly the work of a composer and instrumentalist who is just an enthusiast who isn't earning anything from it - I can say that as someone who is reasonably techy and should be able to spot an affiliate link or ads on the site if there were any.

As you will see below I have restored the external links section with just this one page, which is comprehensive and useful. I think it is comprehensive enough so no other links to ear training software is needed, unless of course within the article itself, if it is notable and requires mention for some particular aspect of ear training.Robert Walker (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The link appears to be a service offered in return for ad revenue and donations. It is an organization, from the content of the copyright message on the site. This is all fine. Even if it was a for-profit commercial service, it would be fine for inclusion in the article but it must be notable. Existence is not notability. Can you offer a reliable, secondary source that suggests your service is notable in the field? Otherwise, I maintain that it (and most of the other links) are not encyclopedic. Thus, my deletion proposal. --Ds13 (talk) 23:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ds13, I second the proposal to delete the External Links section, based on the reasoning you've given. aruffo (talk) 01:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute. I had completely forgotten there was a brouhaha about exactly this thing two years ago. That result was the section being given license to exist, with the caveat that no further links would be added without establishing notability. I still support the deletion of the section, then as now for the same reason as you've given, and I certainly think it's worth (re)considering; however, its deletion will likely make some editors unhappy. aruffo (talk) 14:55, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, let's give it a few days. If any editors feel strongly, they can chime in. --Ds13 (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Per my proposal a week ago, and lacking any strong objection, I have removed the links. This article's external links section appeared to be an arbitrary collection of links, without explanation as to why they are notable in the field of ear training. The links had no ties back into the article. In all cases, the links were products or services. Open source or commercial is not relevant -- external links sections are not merely collections of links. If a product or service is notable, it should definitely appear in the article body. If a product or service is not notable (for example, not referenced by a reliable secondary source) then I see no reason for it to be in either the article or the external links section. More advice on external links can be found here. This is my interpretation. Please slap me down with a rational argument and, ideally, cite some Wikipedia policy if you feel I've done something wrong. --Ds13 (talk) 22:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I see that DS13 has killed the links. I agree with his actions, I went through all of them and I don't see that any of them added anything that could be considered encyclopedic. Further, if a product or service is notable, it should have its own article that can be linked to from here. If it doesn't have an article, it is either not notable, or should have an article created. Using external links in place of articles is just wrong. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:12, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted another attempt to add an external link. Please refer to GraemeL's message above. If a software you're fond of is a notable product, then you will do better service to it by creating a (referenced and supported) Wikipedia article for that product. aruffo (talk) 17:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Restoration of external links section

I wondered about this page? EAR TRAINING ONLINE It is a single site run by George Brodbeck, an Australian composer, arranger and trombone player. As far as I can see it's not commercial, not even ad. supported, and the links to the products aren't affiliate links either. As far as I can tell it isn't selling any product at all. Also it covers all the ear training programs I've heard of, free and commercial, and gives a fair write up of them. Just add it in as:

Links

• EAR TRAINING ONLINE Comprehensive survey of ear training software - open source, commercial, free and online courses

then can add a comment in the actual wiki text for the links section: "Please don't add in any individual ear training products to this section as this is covered in the EAR TRAINING ONLINE website and there are too many such programs to list individually here." in the wiki text.

That satisfies both things - it is not just a list of links to ear training programs, but answers the needs of the reader who after reading t his article is naturally going to want to know where you can go to find out about ear training programs.. I agree that there are too many of them to list in an article like this. I think it is partly a matter of numbers. If you have only one or two notable programs, they may be worth mentioning in a links section. If you have 17 notable ear training programs as he has on that page, then it is too much to add to a page that is not directly about ear training software.

BTW (not suggesting this as a course of action) Wikipedia pages do sometimes deal with large categories of notable software. You could have a separate wikipedia page titled "notable ear training programs" if it was felt to be of sufficient weight to deserve a separate encyclopedic entry about it.

This is done for some kinds of software in wikipedia. For instance this web page Comparison of platform virtual machines. It depends how notable that category of software is, and whether there are good reasons to do an encyclopedic survey article. If there are many notable software programs in their category, many with their own separate webpages in wikipedia already, then such a survey page can be of value.

Disclaimer - I am a software developer myself. However, I have no connection at all with the website. Acutally, I have actually dabbled in writing ear training software myself but haven't yet released any such software as a full program, it is just a feature of a larger program, and not very functional, and not yet worth even mentioning to the author of that website. I came to this page looking for good ear training software to use myself.Robert Walker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: it fits the Wikipedia guidelines here: Links to be considered "A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations." and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Robert Walker (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

After a bit more thought, I decided to "Be Bold" and just add it in. It looked good on the page, doesn't take up much space or obscure the article, and gives a place for readers to go to find out more if they wish to find out about ear training software, as is likely to be the case for many readers of this page. So - seems a "no brainer" to do it this way - but if you have any objections to it do of course say! Robert Walker (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Microtonal ear training

The only thing is - there is no coverage on that site or on this current wikipedia page of microtonal ear training software. Sites such as Xenharmonic Ear Trainer and this one Microtonal Harmony and Ear Training. Probably the article should mention microtonal ear training (which is actually a particular interest of my own, some time I want to write a microtonal ear training program myself but probably won't do it for some years yet). It is a very 12 tone haarmony centric article at present. Also for instance what about ear training for Arabic / Turkish / Indian / Thai (roughly seven equal) / Gamelan music etc, etc, entire cultures of musicians, they must have their own ear training methods.... also modern microtonal music. But that might well be best served by an entire page of its own at some future date if some wikipedia editor has the expertise and the time to do it. Robert Walker (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

I've added a new section "Microtonal Chord and Interval Recognition". Just a stub really, surely more should be said though probably best on a separate page - especially if anyone wants to step in and add information about ear training in other musical traditions that use microtones such as Maqams and Indian music, or Gamelan playing (where there are many singers and stringed instruments such as Rebab who need good intonation relative to the tuned percussion etc. Robert Walker (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Ear training softwares

If it's unnaceptable to mention the free ear training software that is offered as a package on most Linux distribtions (Ubuntu, Fedora and most likely many others, meaning that it is the most important free ear training software out there and probably the most widely used on Linux distributions). Then please tell me WHY it is appropriate to mention commercial ear training softwares? They're no more relevant and aren't free.

Does that make any sense?

Who are you working for Aruffo? Or are you just a useful idiot? Do you realise what happens when people come accross this page and are only offered commercial solutions?

You better have some real arguments to support your actions.

I can see a few ways to get out of this dead end : 1 - we can suppress mention of every ear training software, since none of them are more relevant than GNU Solfege is. 2 - we allow mention of the most widely used ear training software and GNU Solfege is one of them. 3 - see 1 and add to this the creation of page titled "ear training softwares" that would be linked on this article where it would be obviously relevant to present all the ear training software out there in different categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.56.15 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I've just read this : "This comes from the butthurt he has from not being able to post his own website everywhere http://www.aruffo.com/ , which he's spammed in the perfect pitch section. He sells a nice little retarded software to teach perfect pitch even though he hasn't got perfect pitch. I call conflict of interest with aruffo and lack of disclose he's got competition to his product as part of his incentive. He's should not be able to edit this section" So this man Aruffo who's preventing anyone to add a link to free software was actually selling some commercial softwares, there's indeed a conflict of interest here and he should be banned from editing this section. Those posts are from 2009 and 2 years later he is still doing everything he can to prevent people from knowing that free alternatives to the commercial softwares mentioned on this page exist. Someone should do something about this! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.228.56.15 (talk) 15:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The "real arguments" have already been made, by Wikipedia, and are referenced above. They may not be as entertaining to read as the personal attacks directed at me, but they are the ones actually relevant to this discussion.

The obvious solution is the one that is most fully in line with Wikipedia's mission. If GNU software really is notable, then it deserves to have its own Wikipedia entry. A Wikipedia article can then be linked-- as an internal link-- to this article.

If GNU software is notable, then everyone will be better served if you direct your efforts toward creating a Wikipedia article about GNU, with references and support for its notability. Then everyone may enjoy and benefit from the knowledge you have to share. aruffo (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

So commercial softwares can be cited because their employees were paid to make a wiki page for their softwares. With such policies wikipedia is doing a huge favor for corporations. Obviously people doing free softwares don't necessarily have the time to make a wiki page and have no money to pay people to do it, so unless they take the time, they aren't "notable", this is kind of ridiculous but whatever. If at least the people suppressing the links did investigate on what they're suppressing and created the page instead of just blindly reverting edits I'm sure that wikipedia would be of much better quality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abitofknowledge (talk • contribs) 15:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

With the time invested in argument here on the Discussion page, you could have created a legitimate Wikipedia article for the software you are advocating by now! Find a couple of references such as reviews or interviews that are published in reliable sources, add the project's home page, write it neutral tone, and you have yourself an article to more easily link into this and other articles. --Ds13 (talk) 19:20, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we remove the "citation needed" since the GNU Solfege article "proves" that free softwares can indeed "provide many comparable features to popular proprietary products" ? If not we should remove this claim and just mention that free softwares also exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abitofknowledge (talk • contribs) 01:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Aruffo Vandalism

Aruffo didn't get his way before and is now trying to vandalize this page. He has an obvious and commercial conflict of interest in modifying this article but as done so repeatedly despite previously reached conclusions that he was indeed wrong. He continues to push his views on others. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:CONFLICT: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." aruffo (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not allegations. You have several commercial products related to this topic on the market and have been systematically working to remove references to software both commercial and free that have been referenced on this page. This is a plea for help from someone with perhaps a bit more patience than I to deal with your never-ending trolling. You've already proven that once consensus is reached you'll still keep pushing your views onto others. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

From WP:CONFLICT: "Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban." aruffo (talk) 18:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page before it escalates into another war while i take a look at this mess of a recurring situation. In the mean time parties should come to a consensus here as to what edits need to be made to the article when protection is removed. Mfield (Oi!) 19:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to debate with this man again. I just ask that if someone makes the edits it's not aruffo. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah.. I was in the process of preparing the following statement when the above one occurred. I might hope that that comment should make it fairly obvious that the reaction against my edits is merely that-- a reaction against my having edited-- and is not founded in any thoughtful evaluation of article content nor in support of any Wikipedia guideline.

(so here's what I wrote initially) Makes sense. One thing should be perfectly clear before we begin any discussion. Any allegation that I somehow benefit, commercially, from edits made to this (or any) Wikipedia page is speculative, unsubstantiated and, furthermore, ridiculous. An investigation of any prior discussion should make clear, to any reader, that 1. No shred of evidence has been provided in support of any accusation about my supposed conflict of interest; and 2. Every edit committed by me is in accordance with both Wikipedia policy and established principles of grammar.

I am pleased to engage in discussion about the content of this article. If I didn't enjoy it, despite this harassment, I wouldn't be here. But, having learned from the prior discussion, I refuse to respond to unsubstantiated accusations put forth for the sole purpose of distracting our discussion from the article's content and its fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission and guidelines. If someone can explain why my latest edit was anything more than grammatical cleanup and structural clarity-- without making up stories about me-- then that's a productive direction to take. aruffo (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Lets not overlook the elephant in the room here, you've been lobbying to destroy the section for 2 years and the section you're removing can be classified as your own competitors in the ear training market. The only edits you've made to the section is to remove content rather than to cleanup or improve it as far as I've seen. Sorry if I'm blunt about it but if the previous debate is any indication of what it means to have a discussion then it's not worth my time. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 20:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Nor mine. The most critical point to be considered is Wikipedia external links policy. Consider especially the fact that an independent, uninvolved editor happened upon the article and observed, without knowing anything about the article's history, that the included links were inappropriate. Consider, secondarily, that I actually cautioned the editor that the change might NOT be desirable. Then, thirdly, that a decision was made based on content and policy.

In short, there is no elephant in the room. Although I'm not so ignorant as to fail to understand how my edits can give the impression of a conflict of interest, an objective assessment of edits actually made will verify that every one is fully in support of articles' cleanup and improvement. aruffo (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

You go well beyond the removal of external links and beyond the context of what was discussed above. This is a chewed up section of 1/3 the length of the original section I had added. You had already made clear you think all links are somehow promotional in this page and I don't have much to add from my previous discussion. If the other editors want to modify this section I will not object. I'm not sure how you think repetitively removing a section which could easily be viewed as competitors to your own _commercial products_ is not a conflict of interest. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have cautioned Aruffo separately against further direct editing of any part of any article in which he has a specific conflict of interest, irrelevantly of whether the exact nature of that editing is in accordance with policy. There's no compelling concern in the inclusion of links to non commercial software that would trump the COI policy and permit an editor to continue to edit against its intent. The COI is a much more serious concern than the non notability of the other links. The merits of the various links should be debated here and the section should be edited in the article ideally by an editor with no prior involvement in the dispute, but certainly it is not a good idea for an editor with an admitted commercial interest in the field to be unilaterally deciding which other products might be considered notable. Mfield (Oi!) 21:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

From [WP:CONFLICT]: "Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I repeat: Either produce evidence for the spurious, incorrect, and unsubstantiated claims that I somehow benefit commercially from my edits, or even the slightest scrap of evidence that I INTEND to benefit commercially from my edits-- or stop making false accusations of a conflict of interest. I have none.

I also repeat: the claim of conflict of interest is clearly based on the supposition that somehow Wikipedia edits can be motivated by "suppressing competitors." This argument seems logical at face value; however, first, it overestimates Wikipedia's ability to function as an advertising vehicle for ear training products; secondly-- and far more importantly-- the accused motivation stands in obvious contradiction with encouraging other editors to create entire articles in support of "competing" products.

Lastly, then. External links policy is the element in question. The error that occurred in the prior discussion, years ago, is that other editors, discovering that their edits were neither supported nor desired by Wikipedia content policies, opted instead to attack me personally with invalid claims of conflict of interest, and attributing to me super powers (that I do not possess) to make uncontestable decisions. Anyone who believes that any one editor can decide whether a product or person is or is not notable is deluding themselves. Wikipedia policy for notability sets clear guidelines to be followed. If they are followed, then the actions and opinions of any individual editor-- myself or any other-- are irrelevant. aruffo (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So leaving aside all that stuff. The most recent edit I made to the article was for cleanup and clarity. If it is desired, then I will go through, piece by piece, item by item, and explain how each change supports a clearer, better-structured paragraph. Perhaps I was remiss, given the article's history and the fact that links were being removed, not to do that in the first place... but I [evidently] thought the improvement was evident, and [apparently] it was not. aruffo (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

No one has accused you of gaining a financial benefit from removing competitors to your commercial product from an encyclopedia page. Having a commercial conflict of interest, however, has the side effect of corrupting the neutral point of view required to edit Wikipedia articles. See [WP:Conflict] "Avoid editing or exercise great caution when editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with... When people are very close to a subject, their view of it might be distorted, despite the best will in the world." It is my opinion that your actions have not been subtle and your targeting has been very selective as far as your interest and heavy involvement in this page. Additionally you have aggressively attacked any external link addition, suggestion or even mention of commonly used software related to this page. The previous discussions were pretty much endless debate from this part of the page onward against your perceived version of what Wikipedia external links policy means. In the previous discussion you constantly linked things as strawman arguements and other self-perceived attacks on character. Similarly my mention of COI was automatically taken as a personal attack as you repeatedly quoted a section as if to tell me mentioning conflict of interest is not only irrelevant but harassment. Having sensitivities attached to this subject or the previous discussion will only make you prone to confirmation bias when you cite WP, in addition to adding a sense that you have heavily invested in this consistent position for 2 years. You're equally aggressively defensive when a neutral third party comes in and cites WP, making it difficult to have objective discussion. I suggest you modify articles in which you can provide a more objective point of view. The edit you made was a bit exaggerated given the length of our previous discussion, particularly in removing most citations. If someone else has real concerns over the content which was added in the previous 3:1 consensus in which aruffo was outspokenly opposed, I have no problem with them making the modification. It does not make me comfortable having this debate with someone who sells ear training software. 76.201.177.36 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh! Okay, yeah. That makes sense. Naturally I disagree with some points, but I see yours quite clearly. I'm out, then. All yours, folks. aruffo (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ear training. 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/20160303173107/http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/drew.waters/elementary120b_home.htm to http://faculty.plattsburgh.edu/drew.waters/elementary120b_home.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120212201159/http://www.ulm.edu/~everett/auralskills.html to http://www.ulm.edu/~everett/auralskills.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080514002441/http://faculty.augie.edu/~randrews/theory/Course_main.html to http://faculty.augie.edu/~randrews/theory/Course_main.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 05:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)