User talk:Rockstar915

Consensus

With respect, I think you underestimate my training, experience and knowledge vis a vis global and Wikipedia definitions of consensus. I'm glad you didn't mean your remarks personally, and I'll be sure to endeavor not to take them personally in the future. You may in fact wish to read up on consensus yourself, because it seems as if your understanding of the concept and its role in formal organizational decision-making may be flawed. The theory of consensus is in fact not only useful in organizational dynamics but also in politics and in computing, and in each case (for instance, see Wikipedia's own entry about consensus decision-making) you'll find that the answer to disagreeing parties when building consensus is not actually just railroading the majority decision through, but building compromise and soliciting buy-in. This is the formal difference between what we experienced in DRV and what the formal definition of consensus and consensus-building in decision-making is in organizational and communications (and political science, to some extent) theory. You may wish to study up before asserting your opinion again to someone, who like me is formally trained in such fields. Do let me know if you have any questions or would like some tips on reading and research materials (but I think and hope we can be proud of the job Wikipedia's doing, too). Thanks for your concern. --MalcolmGin 03:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between the dictionary definition of consensus and WP:CONSENSUS. I was referring to WP:CONSENSUS. Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

The linguistic difference would still be useful to differentiate. I think it's objectionable to call the use of supermajority "consensus", when it is in fact and practice actually supermajority. Diluting the meaning of consensus with a completely different behavior/decision-making process is a misrepresentation of both the word and the process. Call it supermajority if that's what it is. It's disingenuous to call it consensus. The fact that the use of supermajority-based (or in the case of DRV, limited-population majority-based) decision-making is recommended in WP:CONSENSUS does not mean the two phrases are synonymous. --MalcolmGin 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying -- and yeah, it might be good to qualify that. Maybe you should bring it up at WP:CONSENSUS' talk page? I'd support changing around the nomenclature (especially for DRVs) to clarify the processes so that we don't run into this problem again. What do you think? Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll probably bring it up, but be warned that Xoloz already warned me that it's been tried 3 or 4 times to no real effect. Thanks for the suggestion, though. --MalcolmGin 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not surprised. Per its nature, Wikipedia is reactionary and probably wouldn't appreciate such a semantic argument, as the policy remains unaffected... that said, there's never any harm in trying. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

From badlywrittenjeff's talk page, it looks like I can help Kim with trying to do that work, or she, me, depending, since while she and I disagree about the usefulness of policy, we both seem to agree that the extant policy can/should be fixed. --MalcolmGin 20:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool -- let me know what you decide to do! Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

question for you

hi - are there reliable third-party sources that say that Shut Up Stella is "worthy" of a Wikipedia article? I don't see any references there other than a MySpace page, a website and a fan club, none of which would be considered a reliable source. But I would absolutely not recommend that the article be deleted, and if I knew about an afd on it I would speak up for its continuation - why? because it adds to our knowledge of hiphop. While I agree with you completely that we want well-referenced articles here, I do not agree with your notion that we need third-party verification that a topic is worthy. Many, many articles would not pass that test. You and I stand on opposite sides of the deletion-inclusion divide, so I don't expect we'll come to any agreement on this, but I really am interested to know why you are taking such a hard line on the afd about covert references in songs, and seem to have a more lax stance on an article that has no real references at all. At least for the list in question, it's been acknowledged that a revised version would be better, probably the one that Joe Mabel has done some work on. Asked in friendship, not meant to be confrontational, which is why I'm asking here. Tvoz |talk 04:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Shut Up Stella is a particularly weird instance. You can check out Fan 3's AfD (Shut up Stella) was included in it here. Josh Gotti and his army of sockpuppets (who I have been monitering for quite some time now) vandalized both Fan 3 and Shut up Stella almost beyond recognition. Shut up Stella was subsequently deleted per copyvio and Agathoclea, who is helping out with the Josh Gotti situation, asked me to recreate the page. So that's the history of Shut up Stella. As per their references, there exist quite a few but I've been bogged down with university exams and haven't gotten around to it. But trust me, they fulfill WP:MUSIC (not to mention they're signed to a major label). In terms of the covert songs list, I just don't think that such an unencyclopedic list, which arguably fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:LIST per listcruft, does not belong on Wikipedia. It's a breeding ground for individual original research and interpretations of songs, as many references can be misinterpreted as a "covert" reference to another musician. The reason why Shut up Stella belongs on Wikipedia is that the group fulfills WP:MUSIC. The covert list of songs, at least per my research, does not. And it doesn't help that no one has been able to give me a good reason why the list should say. Hope that helps, and I appreciate your asking in friendship! I'm not here to make enemies, I'm here to make Wikipedia as good as it can be. And the one thing I love more than anything in the entire world is having my mind changed about a topic following a good conversation. :) Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - I actually knew nothing about the history of Stella, so I accept what you're saying, and understand well the backlog problem, not to mention the intrusion of "real" life. But that kind of supports my position, in a way - a tremendous amount of work went into the creation and development of that list (by the way, I did none of it - this is not said in my own self-interests, I really just believe the piece should stand) - over three years of work by dozens of editors. We all agree that the list's new incarnation should be more consistently and thoroughly referenced, and that the list should be watched and kept to that standard. Joe has said that all along and has done some work apparently in that direction. So overturning the decision would allow him and others access to the initial legwork that was done by many folks in identifying candidates for inclusion, and then when reliable sources are found, the item can be added. To wipe out all of that raw material would be unfortunate and I think goes against what wikipedia stands for. Just like I think it was wrong, based on what you're saying about Stella, for its history to have been wiped, if indeed there were references there that had been vandalized. IN a nutshell - the real enemy here are the vandals and their socks - I've been fighting one too for a while who has been attacking some of the presidential candidates' pages (Obama in particular, also Edwards and Clinton) in a sometimes subtle way, causing a lot of work and annoyance. Ultimately I spot this guy easily, but you know that's not enough, so I do understand your point about vandals and socks. And yes, maybe a list like this is potentially an OR problem, but then it can be tagged or edited accordingly. None of it is exactly earth-shakingly important, but I really think it adds to our knowledge and is a useful tool for readers. The fact that I like it and it is interesting may not be reasons to keep, but they also are not reasons to delete. It's a tautology - they're valuable because people find them valuable. But why is that a bad thing that has to be exterminated from the encyclopedia? It makes us something different from the Britannica, and that's one of the reasons I and lots of others work here - to be responsible, but different. I too want Wikipedia to be as good as it can be, and I think the way to get there is to think more about including and less about excluding. But then, I am an inclusionist. Hope, maybe, I;ve changed your mind a little? Tvoz |talk 06:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see where you're coming from, but my argument per OR is that the OR actually runs much deeper than a mere tag on the article can ever portray -- the way I see it, the entire list is and will always be original research and cannot, per its essence, become anything else or ever move past it. And I don't really think that we can keep something that so blatantly violates WP:NOR, or that is just an indiscriminate list of information. No matter how interesting it is (and don't get me wrong, I think it's interesting), such a list just doesn't belong on an encyclopedia. To me, at least, our policies and guidelines make that pretty clear. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I see the danger - not said sarcastically - but that's why if it is well-referenced, if music critics, books, real sources say that Suite Judy Blue Eyes is talking about Judy Collins - then it's not OR on the part of wikipedia editors. Many sources are OR - the OR of the writers - but we accept them as reliable if they meet our criteria. That's all we're suggesting for this list at this time - sourced statements that explain references in songs. The jester sang for the king and queen - ok, it's subject to interpretation as to who exactly is the queen, but the other two are pretty well established, probably multiply referenced, but it's covert. And a kid coming along and reading this list will learn something - one of our goals in an encyclopedia. So I don't think it will always be the OR of the wikipedia editors at all, if we monitor it and keep it referenced. I'm willing to give it a shot anyway. Too many of the people weighing in are more concerned with some kind of all-important process than the fairness of the 2nd afd or the rightness of the action. Especially those who say go ahead and create a new article with the references - that's just unnecesary, and as I've said probably too many times, spits in the faces of the dozens of editors and three years of work that came before. Tvoz |talk 06:42, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take on it -- time on Wikipedia or the number of edit counts does not mean notability. Furthermore, the processes are there for a reason -- to stop Wikipedia from being anything but an encyclopedia. Granted WP:IAR works too, but not in this case. I still don't believe that it's an encyclopedia article, or probably ever will be. And yes, some of the songs might be referenced properly, but I still don't see its significance as a non-context, stand-alone list. Right now, the list appears to be an indiscriminate unencyclopedic list of information. And references, in relation to lists, don't stop it from being that. However, that said, I would have no problem with it being userfied and worked on from there and then reinstated *if* it conforms with WP's standards. As the article stands, however, I don't believe that the article passes our standards, and I think we would all agree that we need the standards to stop anarchy. Rockstar (^T/_C) 06:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your first sentence above about time and edit counts, probably because it's almost 4AM in NY and I am falling asleep. But I don't think you've responded to my main point about the value of having access to the work already done. I guess if your position is kill the piece no matter what, rather than the position some have taken that the piece can be recreated with references but no, we can't preserve the work already done in any form - then I guess you're at least consistent. But as I say - it's late and I have to be up early, and part of my brain is shutting down - so will have to leave this for now. Good talking with you anyway. Tvoz |talk 07:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I meant that just because a lot of people have worked on an article and although it's been on Wikipedia for a long time is not a valid reason to keep an article, so I was under the impression that I responded to your point. And it's not spitting in the face of those people who edited it -- Wikipedia is a community-driven, not individually-written, encyclopedia, and thus we can't get too personally invested in the articles as sometimes they get deleted. And yeah, I'm exhausted too. It has been good talking to you as well. Rockstar (^T/_C) 07:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Graph

On the help desk you posted the following post and I'm interested in that graph too. You said you found it yourself. Can you point me to it?

I saw this brilliant graph a few days ago that showed, over time, the varying number of admins vs. editors and vandals, and that while the number of admins is only rising slightly, the number of vandals is rising hugely. I've searched and searched but to no avail. Does anyone know where I can find that again? Thanks! :)

-- 131.211.210.13 07:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC) (aka MacGyverMagic; too lazy to log in)

Hey -- here's the link to it: here. Enjoy! Rockstar (^T/_C) 15:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the thank you

I really felt good when you and I made the connection over consensus lately. I appreciate the work you're obviously doing here too, and since you think they're silly, no smilies or other weirdnesses for you either. Good to build bridges instead of just being frustrated by not being able to communicate. Thanks for helping build ours. --MalcolmGin Talk / Conts 14:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Something to Ponder

Hi there. I appreciate the work that you and other Wikipedians do. I have been watching the discussion over the article about my son's band, Still Pending with interest. Obviously, I think it's exciting that someone took the time to create the article and that others are so interested in making sure it meets notability criteria, etc. What an interesting place this is. Whether the deletion is overturned or not is rather inconsequential in the grand scheme of things. I just wanted to comment about your statements regarding kid bands in the business. Here's an angle that you may not have considered. First, these kids are actually very talented. You may wish to dispute this, but the fact is, each of these kids are musically gifted. Are they as good as the Red Hot Chili Peppers or some other older band? Of course not. However, without young kids pursuing their dreams and musical aspirations, who will be the future of music? As the Dad of one of the band members, literally every day I see evidence of the inspiration that these kids are to other kids and even adults. They are asked questions daily about how to practice, what kind of instrument to play, where to take lessons and how to start a band. We've seen comments such as, "You made me pick up my guitar again after many years of not playing," from one older musician. These young kids thrive on helping other kids to not be intimidated by the complexities of making music. They make it look easy and this, in turn, encourages others to give it a try when they may have otherwise decided against it. Have a look at the comments on the band's website guestbook or YouTube channel and you will see the type of thing to which I am referring. NAMM decided to partner with these particular kids for just this reason. Since there are so many other kid bands around, they could have selected any number of young bands. They chose Still Pending because of the impact they have on other people to want to make music. That's what NAMM is all about. The Cartoon Network selected them for some of the same reasons (they, of course, have some other motives, as well). So, while we can argue over the talent of these kids, the fact remains that the media coverage and other coverage they, and other young bands receive, is a positive thing for music, in my humble opinion. People young and old need sources of inspiration to pursue their talents. Seeing young kids, unafraid of taking risks and reaping some nice rewards in return should be an inspiration to all of us. I say, more power to them if they can get the attention of the media to help them spread the word to an even wider audience. To be frank, these kids have been an inspiration to me as well. Believe me, I have many issues with our media, but, like most things, positive attributes can be found in the messages that they are able to send with their broad reach. I believe that these, and other kids, are notable because of their age and it should be celebrated. We have seen comments before about people liking them only because they are young. There may be some truth in this, but my point is that this is not necessarily such a bad thing. Young athletes and others who are considered "prodigies" get media attention mostly because of their age. They are never as talented as their adult counterparts. I would make the same argument about their notability and their ability to inspire. I apologize for my long-winded comment. Thank you for taking the time to read it, and, again, thanks for your invaluable work in the Wiki community. David Ellman 04:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Let me first just say that I appreciate your comments and that I apologize for the length of my comment. Considering what I've said at the DRV, let me just say that I would expected a much less civil comment from one of the band member's father. So I just wanted to begin with the fact that I appreciate what you've said and that I respect your civility and your ability to keep a level head and not take comments personally during a debate about a subject that is probably touchy to you (to say the least). Let me also just say that it's late my time (1:30am) and I'm quite tired, so I might not be at my full mental capacity. But I'll try to respond to at least some, if not most, of your comments. First, I don’t doubt that Still Pending has gotten a lot of comments like the ones you’ve mentioned above; that does happen generally with media exposure. But my overall problem with Still Pending is that I just don’t think that there should be children musicians, simply because it is inevitable that they won’t be accepted or taken seriously both by the knowledgeable music community or the serious music press. A kid band is arguably destined to become another Hanson: plenty of press, sure, plenty of fans, sure, plenty of positive comments about the future of the music industry, sure, but in the end, never taken seriously. And by taken seriously I mean taken seriously by the folks who actually are shaping the industry. Unfortunately, and maybe this is pessimistic of me (I have, however, had quite a bit of exposure and experience within the music industry – I’ve worked at two indie labels and one major), but the future of pop music is determined not by the bands but rather by the major labels. But that’s just pop music. What shapes “real” music (if that term can even be applied) is true independent, forward-thinking music. The problem is that the chance that a band of children to be able to influence or even be accepted by such a community is very slim. Actually, knowing the community with great intimacy, I would say it’s close to none. So the question boils down to whether or not their press coverage is a good thing for the music industry? As a music purist (and a huge fan of both cutting-edge and pop music), I’m not so sure it is. I mean no disrespect to your son’s band, don’t get me wrong, but it worries and upsets me when bands get more press simply because of a schtick (or because of their age) than older, more experienced, and arguably more talented bands who really are shaping the music industry but won’t be appreciated for their contributions for years to come. I don’t doubt that the members of Still Pending have talent. But let’s not kid ourselves (no pun intended) – twelve-year-old kids are still learning to be talented during encounters with the opposite sex, so their musical talent, while it could be good, is arguably still relatively little in the greater picture. Furthermore, should the band be notable for their ability to inspire? I would argue, per my comments about the industry and my experience, that bands should be notable for their talent, not any attribute that is specifically not talent. If Still Pending has talent, as you say it does, then I would rather have the band mature both in age and talent and then debut into the scene when they’re at least in high school. If their talent is as good as it is claimed, then they should be able to generate the same hype. All this said, the band does fulfill Wikipedia’s guidelines and should have a Wikipedia page per our policies and guidelines. And none of my comments should be taken personally – I do wish your son and his band the best of luck in the industry, as it’s a tough place and a pretty nasty environment. And for what it’s worth, I do hope that I’m wrong and that Still Pending can move past being just a “kid band.” But it’s nice to have this discussion, and again, I do appreciate your comments. I hope that mine made sense too, as I’m too tired to read over them. I can't believe I wrote this much. But feel free to respond if you want! Rockstar (^T/_C) 05:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a good and intelligent discussion and I always welcome that. It has got me thinking. I am at work, so I don't have the time to really get into as much detail as maybe I would like right now. As parents of these kids, I have to be honest that we have really struggled with what is the "right" thing to do. We know all the horror stories about young kids in the industry. I can't remember the Hanson story, exactly, but other people have mentioned it as well. It's a bit scary to think about what could possibly happen to these kids if they get swept up into childhood stardom, which is a real possibility with all that is happening right now. One of the comments you made about being a purist got me thinking, though. There is clearly a huge base of music fans who are young. Kids are getting interested in music at very young ages now (maybe always). I know that my kids started showing musical taste at about age 8 or 9. My daughter is a huge Disney fan. Now, lots of people would make the same argument about these "artists" that they are making about SP. The fact is, there are tons of fans of this music. Sure, it's candy-pop, overproduced garbage by some standards, but some kids absolutely love it. My daughter has found a new interest in singing, largely, I think, due to some of these performers. The members of SP are actually quite opposed to Disney music and that entire genre. They all love classic rock and newer alternative and other rock. One of the really fascinating things about SP is that they appeal to kids who like alternative, punk and rock music - including many, many male fans, but they also appeal to the Disney set - mostly female. The alternative/rock kids like them because they appear to be genuine - they write their own material, they cover cool bands like Green Day, Zeppelin and RHCP and they really do rock. I don't know what you saw or heard (you said you checked them out), but I would encourage you to check out their YouTube channel and some of the most recent videos from their show at the Crystal Ballroom [Still Pending Music]. I hope you can see that there is real talent here. Take particular note of the number of plays that some of these videos have gotten. Read the kids' bios and you'll see that they are real musicians - not produced by some label or network. This is their band - they write and arrange everything. They get comments every day from older teens - 15, 16, 17 who say things like, "I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually think you guys are good." These kids are a pretty tough and discerning audience and yet they respond to this band. We have seen these same kids literally shred some of the other kid bands out there - they can see through the facade, and yet they approve of SP. I am the first to admit that the Disney set of fans probably like them first for their appearance. They, too, however, respond ultimately to the music. Well, here I go again getting long-winded. I'm almost to my point, so hang with me. The point is, there are lots of kids out there clamoring for music. You're suggesting waiting until these guys are older. Well, who are they going to appeal to, then? Perhaps the older kids, perhaps not. Why deprive these young fans of something that clearly appeals to them? Would you tell a young athlete not to compete in sports until they are older and more experienced? The fact is, these kids are gaining hugely valuable experience now by performing for live audiences that many kids will never have the chance to gain. Take a look at the progression in skill and performance they have made since last summer (the older YouTube videos). This came from lots of practice and lots of live performances (which, by the way, they absolutely love). I don't necessarily subscribe to the theory that they will always be regarded as a "kid band." I don't have the expectation that they will be around for 20 years. Not many bands last that long, especially kids. I also think that with their talent, these kids could have a little run right now and then possibly re-emerge with other bands or in other forms later on. I truly believe that there is a difference between these guys and the over-produced stuff we're seeing in their age bracket right now. They are the real deal. Nobody is making them do this or telling them how to do it. I'm hoping that they can retain this "purity." This will be the tricky part. Well, I win the new record for length. Sorry about that and thanks for the stimulating dialog. David Ellman 21:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)