User talk:Parzival418

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my Talk page

I prefer when possible to keep discussions in one place so they're easier to read.

• If you leave me a message here, please watch this page for my reply.
• If I leave you a message on your page, I will watch there for your reply.
• For discussions on article talk pages, I will watch for replies to anything I post, so you don't need to notify me here when you reply (unless you really want to!).
• These aren't rules though, if you'd rather reply here instead of where I posted my message, that's OK too, use your best judgment.

Thanks!

Parzival418

Contents 1 Music editing 2 Suspected sockpuppet activity 3 Beyond laughingsocks 4 Barnstar of Music 5 New age talk page 6 That misterious Doktor Who 7 "non-encyclopedic link" in sources 8 Hi! ☺ 9 Bravo! Well said!

[edit] Music editing

I welcome your presence for building a referenced SpM article. You've done some good research work.
I hope you will take my advice to not confront a classically tendentious editor elsewhere when you have so little knowledge of the Wikiguides. You could easily spend all your time in dispute procedures with someone who is a master of that art, and get tar-brushed in the process.

Have you read my unreferenced 2006-10-23 classic edition of Wikipedia:Space music. (also linked on the SpM talk page)?

I suggest that you work to find consensus with editors in other related articles like New Age and Electronic, which I claim are as closely related as Amb. If you can form a consensus with a few SpM, New Age, Electronic, and Celtic editors, say, starting from the relationships I suggest in the 2006 classic, then the consensus group could edit articles related to a tendentious editor's POV, and hopefully the fact ripples would gradually get his suspected WP:OWN article to harmonize, without you getting bruised.
The key is references that you supply for each statement to the consensus group. If you don't have them and a tendentious editor doesn't have them either, then serious Wikipedia editors won't help you when you really need it during tendentious disputes, because neither of you is technically advancing the project's encyclopedic attribution credibility.
Something that would be useful is a subpage database to store SpM related facts and references before they are actually added to an article.
Good luck. Milo 10:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Milo, thanks for your advice. I've read your contributions to the subjects I've been editing and have found them helpful. I appreciate that you posted your comments here - I was wondering if anyone was noticing the what was happening and I was just about to ask for help though I wasn't sure how to do that. You were one of the people I had thought of asking, so good timing! And I noticed you undid the repeated reversion of the material I added on the space music page. That was good to see just as I was starting to feel I was just pushing a boulder up a hill over and over.

I will take your advice and back off from tangling with someone who feels he owns the articles. I have no interest in any kind of dispute procedures - the point of all this is not to "win", it's to make the articles better. I like your idea of working with the editors in the related genres, New Age and Electronic. I agree the relationship of Space Music with those genres is as close as with Ambient. I don't see any problem in various genres overlapping and feeding each other with ideas and approaches without having a linear or descendant relationship. Music has more dimensions than that!

Yes,... I've read your "classic" article and I like it better than the current version. I have not reviewed all the history, so I don't know the story of how that version was pushed aside, but the content makes sense to me.

I now understand your explanation about building a database of facts and references. I was thrown off by so many people editing without that supporting structure, but the way you have explained it makes it more clear how important that is.

There's a lot to learn about this process! It's very interesting, I've never seen anything like it. Thanks again for taking the time to offer some points of guidance, I will take them seriously. Parzival418 11:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Tendentious reversions will likely resume after 24 hours due to WP:3RR, so you should read the Wikipedia:Tendentious editing, and related dispute and consensus Wikiguide articles. The next step after tommorrow's reversion is to revert only individually sourced statements. Don't change the English rhetoric between them, since he has a right to change that. Then for your second and final-for-the-day sourced-statement revert, pick only the strongest statement, since that will go to the RfC consensus 'jury'. Edit summary call for a talk page discussion preceding removal of sourced statements. If he doesn't show up for a talk page debate, or if he does and you can't agree on that one strongly-sourced statement, then begin a Request for Comment. Milo 13:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected sockpuppet activity

Please note that as a suspected sockpuppet account you are now the subject of a checkuser request. Until such time as the matter is resolved you are advised to cease editing Space music, Ambient music, New Age music and related articles. --Gene_poole 22:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Gene, I'm not a sockpuppet and I'm not worried about your checkuser request. You do not own those articles. Parzival418 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the laughingstock checkuser request page if you hadn't seen it.

Interesting how Gene is losing control of his own request. This checkuser circus is turning out so badly for him that I would be surprised if he ever does it again. Gene conveniently opened the door with a charge of "owning numerous other additional", so I dumped in my file of silly sock reports. Then to my surprise Doktor Who asked to be added by template construction. I followed up by adding that suspiciously coincidental SpM IP edit , as well as Gene himself.† Gardener of Geda seems to be the only regular editor not yet listed. (†Gene still denies he was caught with a sock years ago when these infamous oops, dang! edits were discovered [1] [2] and juried [3]).

My earlier comments were moved to the checkuser talk page by the clerk. They were fun to write, because one of my defenses was that of having no need for socks, based on how much my supposed importance has been increased by all the socks charges. =))

Did you notice the backhanded compliment, where Gene said we are "congratulatory"? Well, he's right about that. I expect this incident will become a humorous anecdote years from now. Milo 12:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond laughingsocks

Hi Milo - now I have read the various links you provided, including the entertaining backhanded compliment! I can see how in the long run the humour will prevail, but I must say - so far this seems quite tedious, using our energy that would be more valuable in researching and editing.

I'm still new to this so I'm not sure how - or where - to communicate about certain things. For example, there is a question on the checkuser request from Luna Santin asking why Dr Who added himself to the process. I have not had direct communication with him other than on the talk pages of some musical genres. It was on Talk:Ambient music after I agreed to and expanded on a comment by Dr. Who, that Gene first accused me of sock puppetry. So maybe when Dr Who saw the checkuser stuff happening with you and me, he added himself to the list. You already posted a reply to that qeustion, but we have not heard from Dr. Who yet. Would it be a good idea to post this information on the checkuser request page now, following your reply there, or would it be better to just stay quiet since I am not familiar with the procedures?

Also, another strange happening regarding Dr. Who - I looked at his user page today and it appears he blanked it out yesterday, including his talk page. He left no message about why, so it's just a mystery at this point. I thought you might want to know.

I'm still interested in the various related articles, and I have been reviewing some additional references. Some even come from "books" - those strange pre-internet artifacts made of paper! Do you receommend that I wait to proceed with any of the editing until this administrative procedure is completed? Regarding that.... how we will know the result of the process, is it posted someplace as a completed checkuser notification? Thanks... Parzival418 07:27, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"our energy that would be more valuable in researching and editing" That's exactly why the community is opposed to tendentious editing. If a tendentious editor persists, sometimes the community will come in as a reversion team, kind of like vigilantes (or white cells). Sooner or later the tendentious editor will lose his/her grip, but it can take a long time, so plan to be very patient and jump through each tendentious hoop by the book. There's one in the appeal dock at ArbCom right now, that the community has already banned and will be relieved to see the back of.

"Would it be a good idea to post this information on the checkuser request page now" No, checkuser is almost complete. You and I are definitely unrelated by IP. Some result clarification is still needed for some of the others.

"strange happening regarding Dr. Who" Seems like he said a while back that he hadn't enough time (in TalkSpM)? I think we just proceed, and he'll show up when and if he can.

"Do you recommend that I wait to proceed with any of the editing until this administrative procedure is completed?" During tendentious editing, one has to administer and edit at the same time. It's very slow, but on the other hand, there's no time limit. Working top down, pick the strongest sourced-fact available (hopefully "space music was named/coined in 1973"), and edit, revert, negotiate, consense/fail, RfC consense, edit, proceed to the next top-down fact. You can plan several facts-steps ahead (that's called "pipelining" in a computer CPU).

"Some even come from "books" Those could be very helpful.

If a tendentious editor removes a sourced fact after RfC consensus, then an incident notice gets posted on one of the several noticeboards. The expected outcome is that the tendentious editor gets warned. If they do it again, then they get blocked for short time. If they keep doing it they get banned. However, expect all kinds of unexpected things to happen, and don't get pushed off balance. Think about running on one of those soldier obstacle courses.

The whole editing and administering process runs in cycles of action and rest, which is the way life itself works. Milo 16:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Milo, thanks again for your reply and detailed explanations. I understand your points, in particular your "white cells" analogy is illuminating. As far as entering into the process of upgrading the Space Music article as we've been discussing, I think I'll take a break from that one for a while and do some work on other articles that hopefully will not involve a tendentious editor. I do believe that following the procedure you've outlined and sourcing everything carefully we can improve the article over time, but the recent hassles have been distracting and annoying, the last thing I need when I'm working on this for free just to be helpful and perhaps learn something new!

I don't mind spirited discussion or even a good passionate argument, but constant wrangling with a person who has already made up his mind and will not budge, who makes unfounded accusations to obscure the content of the conversation and guard his agenda, is not why I am here. I'll likely return to Space Music eventually because its current POV is not neutral, and it needs and deserves to be adjusted. I'll gather references for pipelining as you suggested (I have some ideas on that). I'll continue to watch the SpM page and related articles so if you or other editors start making improvements I can show up to support the NPOV approach. Meanwhile though, for now, I feel like finding out if it's possible to edit articles where there can be positive results rather than bad vibes and conflict.

"cycles of action and rest, which is the way life itself works" - well said! Parzival418 09:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar of Music

		The Barnstar of Music
		I, Cricket02, would like to award Parzival418 with the Music Barnstar for exceptional efforts in improving music-related articles. Cricket02 03:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I did notice a little of your troubles today, and I couldn't offer any more than a little encouragement and to reassure that your efforts are truly appreciated. Hope it helps.  :) Cricket02 06:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New age talk page

Hi again.  :) New discussions do usually go to the bottom, yes. I have been meaning to cleanup and archive some of the old discussions, glad you reminded me. I'll have a look... Hope you're having a great day! Cricket02 06:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] That misterious Doktor Who

Hey, apologies for my absence, I'm really very busy these days, I can come here for just some minutes almost every day. The good news is that now I have access at the records/cds archive in a radio station, so, I am planning to improve many articles regarding albums and discographies. Also, please note that I couldn't use the keyboard of my home pc for many days: despite I'm a pc technician, I'm such a crazy-lazy dumb a.. that I have no time to repair-build my own computer(s). With regard to your interests, I've found the proof that Edgar Froese coined the term cosmic music (kosmische musik in German) before others. C ya soon here, I hope.Doktor Who 18:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc, good to hear from you again! I wondered what happened when your page was blank for a couple days, I'm glad things are OK with you. I look forward to seeing your source about kosmische musik when you're ready to post it. As I mentioned in the conversation with Milo earlier on this page, I'm working on some other articles for a while before returning to the Space Music page, though I remain interested in the subject and will keep an eye on it. Have a good time with your explorations of the radio station record archive! Parzival418 03:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I blanked the page becouse actually I didn't know if I would have ever been back. Hopefully I should be able to help next week. Good work to you.Doktor Who 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Doktor Who.

Regarding fixing your own PC keyboard — oh, yes. AFAIK, the English-language saying "The cobbler's children have no shoes", originated in Europe.

If and when you can, please try to find some reliable source evidence of how "album" space music came to be thought as the only kind outside the USA. "HoS" (Hill-Turner) may be the most famous kind of space music in the USA, due to the combination of the HoS album label and the public radio show, but I don't know that for sure.

I think that "New Age" music business articles that you may find in the radio station would be an excellent WP:RS source. The problem is that radio stations rarely keep back issues of music trade magazines. Milo 03:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed there are no back issues, sadly. Anyway, I'm in touch with a former professional journalist that worked for some major italian music magazines, I'll look forward if he can help. Here at the radio station there are hundreds of vynile and cd records, anyway. So, I can help to add useful info to albums' cover notes and so on. Bye for now. Doktor Who 17:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, recently I had considered to leave, thank you for telling me that other users appreciate my work here.Doktor Who 00:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "non-encyclopedic link" in sources

Regarding this, I did try to find a non-commercial way to cite the label's founding date, but wasn't able to find one. Note that the link was used as a reference, and Wikipedia:External links#References and citation specifically says that the page (and its discouragement of commercial links) doesn't apply to references. In the future, it may be better to try to find a higher quality replacement for a source (and doing nothing if you're unable to find one, since others may have gone down that path before), rather than removing sources. --Interiot 16:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please inform me if I'm missing something here, but I think Interiot may be correct.

• The article is about a (presumably) notable commercial organization, Six Degrees Records. Therefore one would expect commercial links that are not unduly self-serving advertising or promotion.
• Not "unduly self-serving" means the encyclopedia gets enough information of value to verify/attribute significant-to-critical facts, as justification for whatever additional sales the commercial organization might get from the link. I think the opinions of identified commercial participants are appropriately discounted in judging the consensus.
• Academic/encyclopedic musicology and the business of music are inextricably linked. Every episode of Bob Porter's authoritative public radio musicology program Portraits in Blue is filled with names of popular music labels, their commercial rise and fall, music sales information, and the intimate details of their relationship to the artist. [Update: link to the Bob Porter page at WBGO, Newark, NJ. PinB began its 25th year in the fall of 2005.]
• As a WP editor, I've linked to Amazon and Google books to verify publishing info, as well as to help readers if they want to do a search within a book, find it in a library, or buy it if they so choose. As long as WP links aren't labeled like "buy this book" it should be ok. (I think the equivalent to book search in music would be commercial links for listening to clips, but I don't know what the current consensus is about this practice.)
• I've done Wikiguide research on the meaning of non-encyclopedic as a debate argument. A lot of editors use that lofty word, but at core, it is among the weakest. The last time I researched the "Unencyclopedic" tag, some Wikiguide I read said "unencyclopedic" is an unsupported personal opinion. Therefore, I personally would use that word only if further supported like, "{something} is un/non-encyclopedic because {reason1, reason2, etc.}.

I hope this helps. Milo 18:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC) Re-edited 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Interiot and Milo, I accept your comments and stand corrected. I removed the reference because when I visited the Amazon page it seemed so strongly promotional. But after reviewing your notes and the Wikiguide you mentioned I see how the information in commercial links can be valuable. I also accept the point about doing nothing rather than deleting a source if I can't find a better one. Interiot, you mentioned in your edit comment that you prefer the Amazon reference, so if you still prefer that one and want to change it back to that in the article, I will not revert your change. I appreciate that you both took the time to explain these points. Thanks. Parzival418 19:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Neither is a good link, really. I was looking for something that solidly stated when the label started... it would be much better if a reliable third-party source could be found, but I unfortunately didn't stumble upon one during my searches. Anyway, I just got a little hot-headed, sorry about that. --Interiot 23:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Even if it can only be calculated, references (as opposed to mere links) to themselves about themselves, are considered WP:RS unless there is evidence that the fact referenced is incorrect, or their historic lack of veracity is well-known. Normally, a business knows their founding date better than anyone else, except maybe a state incorporation documents web site. Milo 00:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi! ☺

“

Hello Qwerty -thanks for your help catching the IP talk page blanking of the warnings here at this diff.

”

Hi, and no problem.:)

“

I had that page on short-term watch after adding the template so I saw your edit and checked out your user page - just curious! I noticed that on my browser your top user box is overlapped and partly covered up by the ones lower on the page. I thought you'd want to know about that. I use Safari on Mac OS X, so maybe it shows differently than other browsers, but so far, the user boxes I've seen have all lined up well so I wonder if it's something in your page code. The one that is partly covered up is the yellow one at the top, I can't read the words in it... only its top half shows. The next one below it that covers it is the recent changes patroller box.

”

Alright, thanks. I use Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.3, and I'm fairly sure that IE, Opera, Safari, and other browser (suits) all render differently. It's annoying, and I don't know what I see is what other see. My user page is a bit of a mess, as it has always been.

“

Anyway, just a friendly hello, and thanks again for your help restoring that template... Parzival418 06:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

”

No problem. And hello to you, too!:) --Qwerty (talk) 06:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bravo! Well said!

Thank you for your very insightful comments, on both the poll page and on the poll TalkPage, if I may say so. I particularly thought appropriate and insightful what you said about the "organic elastic interaction" among the prior statements of three independent policies that have a useful ambiguity in relation to each other that "inspires [among editors] deep explorations of how the various aspects of policy interact." I started to respond on the TalkPage, but thought better of it because I would like to minimize the turf war confrontations of these events by leaving others to respond to you on the TalkPage, even while encouraging us all to examine the very real turf war dynamics among us that sometimes produce the distortions in the 1) poll presentation and even the 2) flawed WP:ATT conception that you noted on the TalkPage. As way of explanation of why some of us stopped protesting to the distortions in the poll presentation, we wanted I think to minimize the turf war dynamics at this time. That is, to minimize the break out of another turf war skirmish, if the turf warriors hold the position of a distorted poll introduction, maybe the way to minimize the break out of another turf war skirmish is to let the turf warriors hold the turf when they hold it. Would you agree? Even with the distorted poll introduction, the poll seemed to work productively, as you note. Thanks for your comments. --Rednblu 08:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello... I appreciate your message, it's good to know my communication got through to someone! Regarding your notes about the turf wars, I see what you mean and I agree with you. I came to the discussion on this late so I missed a lot of the earlier drama, but in reviewing the poll talk page now, your point is very apparent. I had considered leaving out those notes about the bias in the presentation of the poll, but I couldn't get myself not to at least mention them. Now that I see how the discussion continued from there, it's clear that as you said, the turf warriors are already "dug-in" and are not going to move. Maybe that won't matter though, since the poll itself is producing so much interesting content, and probably not producing enough consensus to substitute the policy pages. I like the interacting multiple policy pages, I hope it stays that way!

Even with all the political wrangling and turf wars, overall I feel we'll have a positive evolution somehow. I am continually amazed at the dimensions of this experiement called Wikipedia. There's never been anything like it...

Thanks again for your message, good to meet you. Parzival418 06:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. --Rednblu 08:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)