User talk:Parsifal

Parsifal is on extended wikibreak. Talk page message response will be delayed. Emails are welcome for quicker communications. Click here to send Parsifal an email.

Saturday 10 August     23:46 UTC     (Purge Server Cache)

;Welcome...

• I prefer keeping discussions together in one place
  

— so please watch this page for my reply if you post here.

• I'll watch your page for your reply if I post a message there.

• On the other hand, I like the snazzy "new messages" alerts too, so if you'd rather reply here to my post on your page, that's fine as well.

Thanks! Parsifal

My user name change

I got tired of having numbers after my name (plus, people had trouble remembering the numbers), but my name was not available without numbers.

So, I've changed the spelling to another version of the same name, now without numbers... --Parsifal _Hello 03:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

Follow-up

...don't know if your still watching this page, but it turns out the PROD deletion went through, the Post-Ambient article is gone. --Parzival418 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to archive that good Talk:Post-Ambient discussion. When I asked for help in doing so, it turned out that an unencyclopedic article can remain deleted while undeleting its useful talk page. See an account of that transaction here. Milo 04:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Good idea to archive that page. I was wondering what happened to it after the article was deleted, especially for context of our various other discussions regarding GP as related to the debate on that page. So it's good you requested the talk page be re-instated. The article itself really was no good though. I really don't believe it's a genre after the research I did. I don't know if GP wanted to keep it just because others wanted it gone, or if he actually believed it was worthy, but if he had come up with sources I was willing to change my mind. I don't think the sources were there though, I checked many links and did not see people talking about that as a type of music, other than simply music that's related to ambient, only different and later. --Parzival418 08:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

GP has been adding references to Space music, but it's not clear to me what he did from your perspective. Milo 09:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. They all seem to be from this one article by Lloyde Barde of Backroads Music (Heartbeats catalog): here. But, as with the other reference I mentioned on the article talk page, this reference is cherry-picked too. It does say some of what he's claiming, but it's vague and also self-contradictory, like this:

Where is modern instrumental music heading now? Several directions simultaneously! And, yes, it is specific... Suppose you were to draw a wheel. Each spoke, tracing a thin pie-shape out of the whole, would contribute to the modern or New Ambient movement: new age, neo-classical, space, electronic, ambient, progressive, jazzy, tribal, world, folk, ensemble, acoustic, meditative, and back to new age... The order and placement is no accident; each comes in and out of the previous, leading into the next, with shades of overlap and crossover visible at every turn. Each "type" has its own history, its own cornerstones and "hall of fame" artists and titles. Each has crystallized and grown, achieving greater artistry over time, and becoming more recognizable in the marketplace.

The new references seem to be all from this article. But the essay is so vague and wide-ranging that it is probably possible to make opposite edits to the article supported by this same reference.

Also, there has been additional activity. He's invited a couple more editors and complained about you to one of them. One of them is Gardener of Geda, but I don't think he's around lately. Still, check out his talk page at the link following here. And you might not have seen it, but there was recently administrative activity regarding his "Gene_poole is evil page":

• user Viriditas talk page comment
• current GP talk page - Viriditas
• Gardener of Geda talk page comments
• WP:AN report archive
• MfD archive
• GP off-wiki WP:AN report archive
• GP off-wiki WP:AN talk page diff
• archived version of GP talk page - items of interest

--Parzival418 _Hello 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Great sources, lots of news, thanks.
Check this out [1]. And this [2] Milo 14:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC) 16:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the interesting links and adding your comments. Today a new user reverted the space music page to my referenced version. The user is quite new and does not use edit summaries. I hope GP doesn't regale the new user with threats on the user's still blank talk page. When I saw the reversion, I used that opportunity to add another reference to the article, the one that GP found, except I used the full quote showing ambient and space music as related though separate and equal in the authors classification scheme.

GP also invited another user, here, and this was the result. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"a new user reverted the space music page to my referenced version" How unexpected, though GP quickly reverted it claiming vandalism. GP has decided that the new user is my sock [3]. Milo 08:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been very busy. He also placed that accusation on Chrislk02's talk page (an administrator) and on the article talk page. I have informed Chris of the closed RFCU determination of "unrelated" and other information. There is also new content on Viriditas' talk page, and after he warned the new user, I edited her talk page to explain why she had a sudden warning as her first welcome, and added a welcome message.

Did you see his RFC posting? He also mentioned the sock accusation there: [4].

At the article, the RFC is active, though it was not formatted properly with sections for involved and visiting editors. I didn't reformat it but I've restated the question and added initial comments. I think it'll take a while, but eventually the article will be better when enough people have commented. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: your report at Wikiquette alerts

Got your reply. Thanks. I will hold off until I hear from you.--Margareta 02:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. That was good advice. My original thinking was of the "protect Wikipedia" variety, but you made a good point about time and energy, which I do not have to put towards something lik this--and as you say, there are plenty of disruptive editors out there; I should choose my battles if there must be any. CameronB seems to be an on-again, off-again editor, and though rude and annoying isn't that hard to deal with on the pages I'm interested in. And at least now if he comes back around and starts being more persistent, there is a record of some sort. Thanks agin.--Margareta 16:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You're right, there is a record of the report in case it's needed later. I think you made a good decision to stay focused on editing the articles you like. Glad I could help. --Parzival418 19:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility on List of Bloomingdales/Parisian locations AFD

Thanks for your response; I also made a response on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Incivility on List of Bloomingdales/Parisian locations AFD. I'll take any good advice I can get. Tuxide 06:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikiquette help - Marty Munsch

Thanks a lot for your help! I was quite stuck on how to proceed (and my adopter is on wikibreak). Now I believe I will be able to handle the vandal/self-promoter with far less stress. TearJohnDown 12:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Just ignore the weirdness?

Okay, another newbie question: the user who keeps posting invalid warnings, he can't actually block users, can he? I'm just concerned about this user actually causing problems with the accounts he's targeted for harassment. OtterZero 00:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[replied to this on the OtterZero's talk page --Parzival418 08:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)]

Orthorexia nervosa

I apologize for the delay in responding to your message. I'd very much like to read the full text of the articles cited on orthorexia. I just confirmed my email address, so please send me the PDFs at your leisure using the link on my talk page. Thank you for your defense on the orthorexia talk page - there is a vocal batch of users from the Seattle area (I suspect it's just one person, actually) who take offense at the term and mess with the article periodically. Cheers, Skinwalker 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I've sent you a note about the study PDFs. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Mac issues

See User talk:Athaenara/Archive 0#Update. — Athaenara 06:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Message received - I've replied on your arcive page. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how I missed that on my watchlist, but because you mentioned it in your more recent message I finally saw it. Your fresh view was a wholly welcome sight when I returned after being gone most of the day, I can't thank you enough. — Athaenara 07:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can imagine you have a pretty packed watchlist! I find my watchlist overwhelming sometimes - it would nice to be able to tag certain pages or people to appear in different colors, or even just to have different colors for user pages, talk pages, articles and projects. I wonder if the MediaWiki people would be interested in some suggestions....

I'm pleased to hear my comment offered some relief. Hopefully that discussion will fade away soon. If you get more negative comments there, maybe it would be most effective to just not reply, or use a non-commital comment that doesn't invite further interaction. I'm sure you have plenty of more pleasant ways to spend your Wiki-time! Have a good day... --Parzival418 _Hello 22:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

RFC World Music

Just a reminder that I'm hoping for comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject World music/Definitions; I don't want to hassle you, but I don't want your comment to remain undone because I didn't remind you either :). No hurry, just being hopeful :).

-- TimNelson 09:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I've entered some comments there. Feel free to leave another message here any time, and I'll wathc that page too. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

New Age music

A sincere IP contributor to many music pages added really wrong info about wicca and yoga being "new age". Since I couldn't let that pass, I cleaned up the intro some. Please look it over and change anything you think is wrong. Milo 00:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the IP edit and agree it was sincere though not quite on track. Yoga made some sense (people do use new age music with yoga) but the wicca reference was sort of funny. Those details aside, your rewrite looks pretty good as a temporary solution.

That article really needs a major rewrite, especially the introduction. Some new age music is electronic or ambient but there's lots of it that is not either of those. I don't understand why those connections are so prominent in the article, but that needs to be balanced better. The earliest new age music was mostly flutes (both silver and wooden), nature sounds, fender rhodes, piano, guitars and meditative chanting like OM, etc. There was some electronic stuff too, but that certainly was not the source of the genre.

I can't work on it in depth now though, I have "real life" work deadlines for the next couple weeks. I'll get back to the article after that. Meanwhile I'll make a few quick edits when I can fit them in.

Thanks for letting me know. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

OK - I did make a few edits to the intro tonight. But it's frustrating to read through the article as it is - the definitions section is way off! I wish I had more time to work on it... I guess we'll have to go step by step. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Electronic music genres

I'm sorry, I don't think I can meaningfully contribute to the discussion; my knowledge of electronic music is limited to one Utah Saints tape, and about 20 Module files. I don't have any real context to place these in. If you see something that you think I might profitably comment on, though, feel free to let me know.

-- TimNelson 11:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your involvement in the Indianapolis discussion. Your additions were decisive and sounded authoritative. As part of the implied "pay it forward program" I've been attempting to assist in other Wikiquette alerts and RfCs and your intervention seems like a good example to me. Do you have any examples of involvement on your part that you are either particularly proud of, or that backfired on you in particularly surprising ways? Gruber76 15:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! I appreciate that you let me know my comments were helpful, and also that you decided to help out with reports entered by others.

Yes, I've been pleased with the results many times, especially where I've seen editors blossom after they understand some of the Wikiguides they had missed out on previously while being harrased by disruptive editors. Without detailing specific instances,... in general it's been rewarding to discover that it's possible to make a difference by bringing in a new balanced viewpoint. Sometimes problem editors just disappear or back off when a calm voice enters the fray,... or sometimes editors who have felt all tied up in a knot can suddenly realize that they have choices they didn't see before; for example, the choice of simply not responding to inflammatory comments and returning the focus to the important content, and finding consensus with other good faith editors. That's almost always the best solution, but it can be hard to see it when caught up inside the tangle; an outside voice can help to change the dynamic.

Have there been some that backfired?... yes, there have been a couple of those. One was an editor using multiple sockpuppets who resorted to vandalizing the user pages of editors who were trying to calm down the situation (including me). There may be some remnants of that one still on my talk page. It worked out OK though, the sockpuppets were revealed and the user was banned. The good faith editors on that article have been making progress. It was a drag while those disruptions were happening though, so now I watch out to avoid that kind of thing before it starts. If I notice signs that something is going in that direction, I would back off and ask for help from an administrator - either someone I've communicated with previously or through Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, usually one of the specialized noticeboards listed there. I noticed on your talk page that you have some experience with that kind of thing too.

In some situations that's needed, though mostly I find that calmness and familiarity with the Wikiguides can accomplish a lot and that's certainly my preference. I keep a selection of helpful links and refer to them often: User:Parzival418#Wikiguides and other useful shortcuts. Happy editing! --Parzival418 _Hello 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ThAtSo at it again

OK, so I tried ignoring ThAtSo, but he continues to intervene in the discussion with uncivil, insulting or sarcastic comments.

Today, he had this one:

"This information is cited and verifiable. If you believe Dawkins made it up out of whole cloth, I bet you can get a lot of positive attention from the creationist crowd if you track down the issue of Mensa and prove Dawkins wrong. Until then, the citation is valid so the paragraph stays. ThAtSo 02:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"

And this one:

"The problem isn't that we haven't met your demands, but that your demands do not need to be met. The information is reliable, the citation is solid, the complaints are absurd. Just walk away before your credibility is entirely destroyed by your actions. ThAtSo 03:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"

Then, when I made another, completely unrelated suggestion to improve the article, he replied with more sarcasm:

"Sure, restore the Dawkins quote and we can talk about this next. ThAtSo 04:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)"

While his comments are not terribly egregious individually, ThAtSo's pattern of behavior is clearly contradicting the spirit of Wikipedia.

What do you suggest I do now?

Thanks -- Mwalcoff 04:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a difficult situation that's for sure. The topic of the article itself is controversial, so it's attracted a lot of passionate editors and a variety of viewpoints. The way I see it, you're looking at a few different levels of confrontation and to make progress you need to disentagle them and address them separately.

There's no easy way through this, but I can offer some suggestions:

• borderline incivility from one or more editors, making communications difficult

It's certainly annoying to be presented with abrasive and antagonistic comments, but compared to some of the extreme insults and personal attacks I've seen on Wikipedia, this is relatively mild. Do your best not to take it personally. You don't need to try and fix the person's behavior or protect Wikipedia. It's pretty much never possible to change anything about the way people act - unless they go too far and face administrative measures - but this is nowhere near that level yet. You'll have the best results by just shrugging it off. Keep bringing your own mind, and the conversation on the page, back to the real subject that is the content of the article.

Having said all that, I believe community principles are important and if someone insults you (or anyone else), it's a good idea to point out that the comment was not appropriate. You can even ask for the comment to be retracted. Then in the second part of your reply, return again to the content of the article and the supporting WP guidelines. For example:

Please note that the previous comment includes insulting statements directed towards me. I respectfully request that you re-edit your comment to remove the insults so we can continue our discussion with mutual respect.

Regarding relliability of the source, ... (etc, continue your argument here)

You can do that every time there is an insult. After a while, he might get bored. Or he might respond with anger and more insults; take it easy and don't let it get to you. Go out of your way to be extra polite, and that will shine a light on any instances of incivility for all to see. On the other hand, when he makes a comment that is collaborative and not provocative, you can also express your appreciation, for example: "Thank you for your comment, that's an interesting way to look at it. But I wonder if we can also consider that... (etc)".

In many cases, simply ignoring the comment is most effective. You don't need to convince one editor to change consensus, you need to convince the group. You don't need to have the last word.

• lack of clarity among the editors about the meaning and application of WP:RS

I will post a comment at the article about this item.

• lack of neutrality, ie, POV-pushing about the topic from one or more editors, making consensus difficult

For this, you may need to bring in more editors. You posted an WP:RFC, but it was a bit unclear and did not bring many comments. If you post another one, think of it like advertising - you need to attract attention and then when editors click the link, they should see a short clear statement of the problem, and under that, organized sub-sections for comments by the involved editors stating their positions and a palce for uninvolved editors to add comments. You can also visit related projects and ask editors to come and help, for example, Wikiprojects on Religion, Sociology, Psychology, History, and related articles like Skepticism or Agnosticism, etc.

You could also post requests here: Wikipedia:Neutrality Project or here Wikipedia:Accuracy dispute or here Wikipedia:Editor assistance. I've never used those pages but it could be interesting.

I noticed some incidents in the history that POV and other related templates were placed in the article but editors removed them right away. Maybe the article needs some of those considering there is an edit war in progress. I know it's been a Featured Article, but that's not a reason to remove notifications. It can't be good enough to remain featured if the consensus process is not working.

I'll complete this longer-than-intended reply with some references. A lot of time, we use these kinds of links in discussions, we read them a while ago and we feel we know what they say... but I've found that going back and actually reading through the Wikiguides can be very valuable and offer many techniques and insights, so i highly recommend it. Here are some that come to mind for now:

• Wikipedia:Consensus
• Wikipedia:NPOV dispute
• Wikipedia:Truce
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Disruptive editing
• Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot
• Wikipedia:No personal attacks

Good luck! --Parzival418 _Hello 06:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions! -- Mwalcoff 22:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Space music - RFC planning

I'm having trouble understanding how your position significantly differs from Gene's. Could you use the talk page to describe, in brief, bullet point fashion, the exact differences between your version and Gene's? Don't refer to editors, just points. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 08:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll probably comment at some point, so as a practical matter, how do you propose to identify which point belongs to whom without referring to editors? Milo 08:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like he did explain on the talk page. I would like his permission to refactor that section to make it easier to read. This includes refactoring Gene's comments as well. —Viriditas | Talk 08:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for offering to help. I've posted my agreement on the talk page, reserving my rights to re-edit my comments if the refactored version does not seem to match my intention. I'm interested in seeing how you present it. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[prior two comments moved from below to preserve the thread] --Parzival418 _Hello 04:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

One could do it either way; refer to points alone without editors, or points by editors. It doesn't really matter as long as we are discussing the topic rather than editors. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to any good method. One way I've seen it done before was like this:

Request for Comment: Space music

Description of the issue stated by neutral party (hopefully, we can all agree on this part up front)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

Statement by (user name): (statement here)

Statement by (user name): (statement here)

Statement by (user name): (statement here)

Comments

Comment. (visiting editor's comments here)

Comment. (visiting editor's comments here)

Comment. (visiting editor's comments here)

I think it's important that comments are signed by the editors so threads can be followed and behavioral issues can be clearly visible. Behavior is not the point of the RFC, but if problems arise, they should be visible.

Whatever we do at the start, it will probably get messy and threaded as it goes. It'll be interesting, that's for sure. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that type of format would work well for discussion, but in order to lay the points out clearly and effectively, they should be separated. Also, I'm not interested in behavior-related issues. Let's solve the problems in the article, and if behavior issues are still a problem, bring them up in the appropriate location. The article talk page should only focus on the article. —Viriditas | Talk 02:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

in order to lay the points out clearly and effectively, they should be separated. - I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm open to other formats - the above was just a suggestion. You're welcome to lay it out however you wish. If it seems off, I'll let you know. But as I said before, I'm interested to see your approach.

I'm not interested in behavior-related issues. -- I completely agree with you about that. If problems come up that can't be avoided, we'll take them elsewhere. I only mentioned it because it's happened before and has disrupted the editing, so I don't think comments should be anonymous. But that's just a detail. I'm only interested in the article and the RFC, not the editors. I appreciate your help with keeping this on-track. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as there is no edit warring, we shouldn't have a problem. We need to respect each other. I also want to add that the only problem with your recommended format is that editors have a tendency to digress with long-winded tangential statements. If there was a way to keep it to 50 words or less, I would support your idea. —Viriditas | Talk 03:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't edit war, not ever. That's why I did not revert Gene's changes to my edits. I can't control what others may do though. As far as keeping the comments short, that's fine with me, though I think a 50 word limit is unrealistic, at least it is for me. I think a simple "keep it short" will do fine. I agree, we don't want tangents, and even so we'll get some anyway. On the other hand, I think this issue is not so complex as it seems, and the discussion will go fine it it is not disrupted.

There is a bigger problem though, because the process has already been disrupted. This is important enough for a new section, so I'll start one below. If you want to continue discussing the formatting of the RFC, please continue here. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(database edit conflict)

(note: I've been away for a while and did not see this new comment from Viriditas until after the section below was written. That's when the database conflict happened. So both this thread here and the new section following are still current as I write this. Please thread replies to the new section below, and comments about the refactoring here in this section).

Unfortunately, I have to go offline for about six hours, but when I get back I'll try to address this problem once and for all. Listen, you appear reasonable, so let me appeal to your intellect: can you make the effort to put the past behind and try to work this out with Gene? It won't be easy, but I think the two of you are highly capable and could accomplish great things if you recognized your differences and made an attempt to reconcile the discrepancies in the article. We can represent multiple POV's as long as they are reliably sourced. Anyway, I'm leaving, but I hope the two of you can make some kind of effort to set things right before I get back. If not, I promise to keep hammering away at this. —Viriditas | Talk 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

(un-indent) Thank you. And as it happens, you're right, I am reasonable and friendly, that's my way; I am happy to discuss and compromise and abide by consensus. But there are things about this situation you have yet to discover, and they are not about me. In reply to your note:

We can represent multiple POV's as long as they are reliably sourced. Perfect, that's exactly what I want. If you review my comments on the talk page, I've stated that several times. I am not against including the viewpoint that Gene wants to include, no problem. My single point in this entire issue is that while his viewpoint can be included, other viewpoint(s) should also be included, because they also have reliable sources. Space music is not a simple dictionary word, it's a vibrant and rich area of musical variety. There are lots of people who see it in various ways, and many of those people are reliable sources so we can report about them all, when we have the sources.

if you recognized your differences and made an attempt to reconcile the discrepancies in the article. As with the prior point, this would be fine with me. But there is an obstacle. Consider this comment Gene posted on the talk page:

The suggestion that space music is not a genre of ambient is, however, utterly ludicrous. The vast weight of historic convention, 30 years worth of radio broadcasts by multiple major nationally-syndicated radio shows, hundreds of CD releases and mountains of written reviews and commentary on the subject all support the position that the terms "ambient" and "spacemusic" are mutually interchangeable terminologies. There is simply NO spacemusic that is not also ambient. The fact that 1 WP editor disagrees with this is, frankly, irrelevant. --Gene_poole 23:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there any room there for any perspective other than his own? He even emphasized NO, to make it ultra-clear he is unwilling to consider any other options. If you can find a small crack in that armor and somehow get him to accept that there may be other valid viewpoints besides his, other views that have support in reliable sources, and that can be included in the article... that would be great. I would be extremely impressed with your mediation skills and suitably grateful.

can you make the effort to put the past behind and try to work this out with Gene? Yes, very good, that's exactly what I want. But will he agree? Do you believe there is any chance at all that Gene would accept that?

Consider the sockpuppet and vandalism accusations. They did not come from me. If there were no accusations things would be calm. Months ago when I tried to edit the article he did the same thing, I was cleared by checkuser as you know, but he's making the accusations again now anyway.

Check out his block log - he's been blocked twice in the last month plus once in fall 2006 for actions including incivility, accusations of vandalism and bad faith, borderline harassment, and edit warring. He's been warned multiple other times by administrators as well. That's just to offer perspective - I was not involved in any of those incidents. I've never been involved in any of that kind of stuff.

So, thank you for your help, I appreciate it. But let's be clear, this is not two users arguing or bickering. This is one user attacking, and another, as you noted, being reasonable.

Since my first edit in this round at Space music four days ago, I have not reverted even once. All the reversions have been between Gene and other editors, not me. When I made the first edit, in my response to Gene's comment I indicated that I would not revert his change and that I would not edit war. I have stayed true to my word. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. Let's stop all this. Focus on improving the article and forget about Gene. —Viriditas | Talk 00:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, let's close out this part of the discussion. I really do appreciate all the work you're putting in on this. I believe that you have good intentions and I think your help will make a difference in the long run. But you don't know Gene yet. If you did, you would not have written a comment like that. Without him, there is no problem with the article. That's not an attack; I'm not trolling - it's just the way it is. It may take a while, but eventually you'll see what I mean. --Parzival418 _Hello 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second (resolved)

quoting from the space music talk page:

User Miss_Bea_Haiving has been clearly identified as a blatant sockpuppet account. Your response to evidence clearly demonstrating this is further confirmation of that fact. Given that there is also very convincing evidence that you used at least one other sockpuppet in March 2007 in an attempt to get around the WP:3RR, any contributions which agree with the eccentric, non-mainstream opinion you are trying to include in this and related articles are highly suspect to put it mildly, and certainly cannot be accepted without extremely close scrutiny by multiple outside observers. -- Gene_poole 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Gene, let's keep the behavioral stuff off this page. This also applies to Parzival418 (and others) taking snipes at Gene. Take that somewhere else. — Viriditas 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to deal with the longterm sockpuppet abuse issue that has been shown to exist here through the proper channels, however third party contributors also need to be aware of it at the outset, as it will undoubtedly have a complicating effect on the discussion for however long it takes before the puppetmaster and related accounts have been blocked. -- Gene_poole 03:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Trust me, I see where you are coming from; you aren't the only editor to have encountered this type of trolling. But remember, the best way to stop trolling is to ignore it. Word to the wise. — Viriditas 03:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas, I agree with you about keeping the behavioral stuff off the talk page of the article. So I am writing to you here. I was pleased to see that when Gene launched in the sockpuppet accusations again, that you asked him to stop.

However, I strongly object to your characterization of my comments about Gene, at any time, as "sniping." Even worse, you then refer to my comment as "trolling." I'm sorry to have to say this, but that's just out of line. Take another look at my comment that he responded to. There's no trolling, no attacks. All I said was, no, there's not only one other editor disagreeing with you, there's three. All I did was put the truth train back on the track.

You don't know the whole history. I have never sniped at him in any way, I have only responded to his aggressive behavior towards me. I've never initiated any of that stuff. It's not a situation of two people arguing with each other, it's always Gene on the offensive.

You'll never find even one situation where I sniped at Gene, or trolled, on that page or any other. I just don't do that stuff. You will though find some situations where I responded to his accusations by pointing out that his they are violations of policy. That is not sniping or trolling, it's self-defense.

I respectfully ask you to re-edit your comment on that page to remove the reference to my name and remove the reference to trolling.

There are no sockpuppets in this situation. By expressing comaraderie with his false attacks, you made it worse. He will never "ignore it" because he is using this as a way to bias the discussion. You can see it in his comment between your two comments, that he is attempting to "taint the jury."

Until you've been around Gene for a while, you might not understand this. But eventually you will, as Milo told you on your talk page.

Gene's comment to which you replied was clearly inappropriate and your response was welcome. But there is no reason to direct an admonition to me to not do something that I did not do, just because you're worried I might do it in the future. It was Gene's comment, not mine. Your response is simply not fair to me.

I'll make you a deal. If you remove my name from your comment and remove the word "trolling" from your second comment, then in the future if I ever take a "snipe" at Gene or do any trolling, you're welcome to direct a comment towards me and tell me to stop, and I won't object.

However, in this case I am going to calmly and civily respond to Gene's repeated accusation, because it is a lie. I will not make it emotional, just factual. It is wrong for the readers of the article to be told something as if it is a fact, when actually there is no basis.

If he wants to accuse me of sockpupptry, he can file a report. If he does not file the report, then it is wrong for him to make the accusation. Innocent until proven guilty, right? Not the other way around, which is how Gene has it on the page at this point.

So here's a question for you: if Gene is so sure I am a sockpuppet or any other editors are, then why has he not reported us formally? Why is he instead posting the accusation on the talk page, on your talk page, on the talk page of Chris that he linked on your page?

Well, I'll answer my own question - he's not reporting it because he knows it's not true. As you already know, he reported us previously and we were cleared by the checkuser. But by writing that over and over again where every editor on the article can see it, he hopes to gain an advantage. He won't, because no-one believes him, but it causes a lot of trouble.

You're trying to make this a fair RFC. Don't you agree that it's not fair if the editors who visit are made to believe the the three editors who don't agree with Gene are really just one person abusing the system? Does that sound fair to you?

This is a serious matter. I was willing to trust you to refactor the discussion. I need you to remove my name and the word "trolling" from those comments and allow me to evenly and with civility to respond to Gene's false accusation.

If you are not willing to do this, then I will withdraw my agreement to the refactoring. You can only help us refactor if you are truly neutral.

Since I did not place an offending comment on the page, my name should not be in your response to Gene's comment.

OK? Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

PS. As you can see from Gene's new comment on your talk page, your use of the word "trolling" has already added fuel to the fire.

I read you loud and clear re the trolling issue. I'm happy someone else has finally noticed what's actually going on. The involvement of other unbiased third parties should hopefully stop this nonsense in it's tracks once and for all. --Gene_poole 04:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to him there, because I have no desire to interact with him at all. I just copied this here to illustrate why I asked you to re-edit your comments to remove that word and my name.

Please do the right thing. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

There has been sniping on all sides, and I don't see how the comment about trolling applies to you. I was referring to the single-use accounts that seem to be popping up on the article making reverts. —Viriditas | Talk 10:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

He is correct, you've been had. You have unintentionally identified him as a troll, so you are now co-opted to Gene's side. Unless you go back and re-edit your words: "Trust me, I see where you are coming from; you aren't the only editor to have encountered this type of trolling. But remember, the best way to stop trolling...", to make it clear that you did not mean him, Gene will quote you on his every admin shopping trip and mention you in every RFC to prove that you have identified a troll.

In any case, an account that pops up and makes reverts is not trolling as most people understand it. Trolling takes place on a talk page. I suggest that you change the word trolling to 'criticism', which makes your point without being inflammatory. In the future you must measure every word you write. You can't make vague references or use loose terminology around Gene.

I agree that a defense is not sniping, and everyone with an opinion different than Gene's has to defend themselves. Milo 16:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. There has been a lot of sniping and trolling on this article. —Viriditas | Talk 23:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Viriditas-

I've seen the refactored RFC and it looks neutral enough to me, so we'll go forward with that whether or not you change your comments per my note above. You did a good job with it, thanks for your efforts. I've made some small adjustments but overall I think it's on the right track so far.

So you can see I am operating here in good faith. I don't want to waste your hard work by withdrawing from the agreement and messing up the refactoring. However, I still need you to remove those words from your two comments.

In response to your reply above:

1. There has been sniping on all sides, - no, that is false. Only one person has been sniping. He is known for doing that. Did you read my reply to your comment above and look at his block log?
2. I don't see how the comment about trolling applies to you. You might not see it, but Gene has already seen it that way and told you so on your talk page. He will use your quote in future arguments, as Milo pointed out above. You still have not yet learned about how careful one must be when interacting with Gene Poole.
3. Since you don't mean that word to apply to me, take my name out of the prior comment.
4. Since you don't want these behavioral issues to be getting in the way, then make it so your words are not inflammatory. Follow Milo's suggestion and change the word "trolling" to "criticism. According to WP:TROLL, "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." You can't can show me one single example of anyone other than Gene doing that behavior on the Space music talk page, and most definitively, not me.
5. I was referring to the single-use accounts that seem to be popping up on the article making reverts. There are no single use accounts in use on that page. Have you looked at Miss Bea Having's contribs? This is only one of around 9 articles she has edited since she started a couple weeks ago, which by the way was before this situation arose. Secondly, she has written nothing on the talk page so as Milo said, she cannot be trolling, by definition. All she did was two or three times, on different days, revert Gene's undoing of my referenced edits, presumably because she liked my version better. Her contribs show that she found the article by first reading about music from the Hearts of Space, where she made a correction.
6. Miss Bea Haiving is new editor, she should be welcomed, not attacked. Here's something for you to consider: Since Gene posted his threatening warning on her talk page, do you know how many edits she's made? ZERO. What do you think, was she a sockpuppet and I get scared when I saw that warning? How many warnings have I seen from him and not been scared? Or do you think that he scared away a new editor who had no experience with WP policies and no idea of how to respond to someone telling her if she made a wrong edit she would be blocked for vandalism? Really, which of those two alternatives do you think, or feel in your heart, is the correct one? (I posted a welcome message on her page the next day, but maybe it was too late. Hopefully someday she'll return and find out that not everyone here is mean).
7. There is no sockpuppet evidence and no single use account evidence, so why did you assume there was a single use account? What gave you that idea? You have been swayed by Gene's comments to you, both on your user talk page and on the article talk page. You need to take another look at the whole situation. Other than Gene, is there anyone else in this situation who is arguing with anyone?

OK, that's enough of that. Trolling is a serious accusation. I don't think you meant it that way, you meant it casually, but that's not how people read it - it is considererd a big deal if someone is trolling. Unless you are prepared to show examples of trolling, don't use that word.

As Milo said:

In the future you must measure every word you write. You can't make vague references or use loose terminology around Gene.

Please fix your comments - remove my name, and change the word "trolling" to "criticism" or any other non-inflammatory term. Do it even if you think all this is silly and you're just humoring me in good faith. What's so important to you about keeping those two words there? Do the right thing and remove them. I'm trusting you on the refactoring -- show me that my trust is well placed. Thanks.--Parzival418 _Hello 22:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are just fine, and I don't understand why they upset you. —Viriditas | Talk 23:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

They don't upset me. But they are a problem in the record. What is it about the detailed comments I wrote above that doesn't make sense?

Even if I am wrong (I'm not), why not edit those comments? Are those couple words so important to you? If you're not going to remove my name and the word trolling, I would like to understand why.

Have you re-read the entire page at WP:CIVIL, WP:TROLL or WP:NPA lately? Everyone links to those pages and all the various other Wikiguides, but after the first reading, most people don't go back and read them again. They are quite valuable and deep. It's possible that your use of the word "trolling" violates policy. But don't get me wrong, I'm not going to say that to anyone or try to use it to force you to change the comments. It's not that big a deal to me. I'm only mentioning this because that is a very loaded word - there have been whole long administrative procedures against people who engage in trolling. So when you use that word, you should really mean it and be prepared to show evidence. (This is not a threat, I am not going to take any action on this - I want to be really clear - I'm just trying to explain why your casual use of that word is a problem in this situation, or might be in other situations).

You and I don't know each other yet. Over time it seems we might be editing articles together. This is the beginning of our interactions. I am asking you to do something to show good faith. You are not required to, but I am asking. Consider it a favor, one that won't hurt anyone and won't even really have any effect on the talk page of the article anyway since it's in the past and no-one is reading that section.

There is precedent and policy that would allow me make the changes myself. But I won't do that because I respect people's boundaries.

If you are moderating, or mediating, then your words must be neutral and fair to both sides. Telling me to stop sniping when I had not, and using the word trolling without specific evidence, and about editors you don't know, is not fair and neutral; it's supporting one side of the dispute. That's why I want you to change the words, to show that you are neutral and worthy of your role as moderator.

It's a small, simple request. If you won't do me this favor, I won't have a grudge against you, but it would change my perception of you. My trust in you as a person would be reduced because I would feel you let me down when I had trusted you to moderate the discussion. It's up to you. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I am supposed to be neutral, therefore I cannot change my comments to accommodate anyone involved in the dispute. My comments are based on my own, independent observation of the talk page, article page, and respective history pages which I have looked at. I'm sorry you won't allow me to have my own opinion, but that's the way it is. —Viriditas | Talk 00:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

You're right, you should be neutral. Are you saying that you consider I was sniping and trolling? If so, this is the first time you are saying that. Previously, on this page, just above, you specifically said it did not apply to me. If it did not apply to me, why won't you remove my name from the comments?

Please be specific. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I've been very clear, and I won't repeat myself other than to say that IMO, there has been sniping and trolling on the page for some time. I'm not pointing any fingers. Let's move on. —Viriditas | Talk 00:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to move on, as soon as I understand your reply. Would you please explain this: If you are not pointing any fingers, why is my name in your comment? How is that not a finger being pointed? --Parzival418 _Hello 00:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to my comment about sniping? It applies to everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 00:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Yes, I am referring to that comment, as follows:

Gene, let's keep the behavioral stuff off this page. This also applies to Parzival418 (and others) taking snipes at Gene. Take that somewhere else. — Viriditas 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sniping is a form of attack, a policy violation. It's not fair for you to say I was sniping, unless you can show an example of it. There are none. I was the one being attacked. Self-defense is not an attack.

The trolling comment is even more serious, but if you take my name out of the sniping comment, then the trolling comment will not be connected to my name, so I would drop that part of my request.

You used my name in a statement of policy violation without proof. That's not neutral, it's not fair, it's just wrong. --Parzival418 _Hello 00:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I have to repeat myself: In a response to Gene, I asked him to "keep the behavioral stuff off this page". This was referring directly to his sniping in a previous reply, sniping that has nothing to do with this topic. And to be fair and neutral, I added your name and referred to "others" due to other sniping on the page. I hope that is clear enough for you. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I never did any sniping, my name does not belong in that comment. How about changing it to this?

Gene, let's keep the behavioral stuff off this page. This also applies to any others taking snipes at Gene. Take that somewhere else. — Viriditas 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That would express everything that you want. Since you said I did not snipe, what's my name needed there for?

As long as my name remains in that comment, it states that you believe I am among the snipers. You said yourself you don't believe that to be the case.

It's false. It's unfair. It's wrong. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair change. Go ahead and change it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, I went ahead and changed it. —Viriditas | Talk 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the good faith decision. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Footnote

Thank you again for seeing the value of the videos. On the Wikiproject music notice board, you mentioned attaching a footnote to the links. Is there a certain way you do this on Wikipedia? Ammosh11 14:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is a page with instructions on how to palce the footnotes: Help:Footnotes. In order for the footnotes to show up, make sure to add the references section at the bottom of the article (that's also explained on the help page). To make it work, the references section of the page will need to be lower on the page than the external links section. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I am referring Dirk Beetstra to you for some discussion on the external links. Hope this is okay! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammosh11 (talk • contribs) (Please don't forget to sign your comments...)

I've replied to Dirk's comment at the Wikiproject music notice board. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:30, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Trying to help out

In your statement, you wrote: All we can do is report what primary sources have said about the genres without bias. Actually, no, we don't do that. Generally, we use secondary sources to do that, which is what I'm sure you meant to say. You may want to change your comment to read "secondary" rather than primary. —Viriditas | Talk 23:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, it would really help the RFC if you would sort the sources by primary and secondary. I can help out, of course. —Viriditas | Talk 00:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a reply to both of your above notes:

I understand the policy and difference between primary and secondary. All of the sources so-far are primary, there are no secondary sources that have been found yet. That's the problem with the article in a nutshell. The people we're quoting all have radio shows or record companies and they are the ones defining the terms. By that, I mean, they made them the words up, except Ambient, that Eno defined but has since been much expanded, by others, with controversy.

So we don't need to sort the references, they are all primary.

What I intended to say is that "because we have not found any secondary sources yet, all we can do is report what primary sources have said about the genres without bias." But you wanted less words, so I removed that part. I'll fix it at the talk page to clarify. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hearts of Space article,[5], Lloyd Barde's "Notes on Ambient Music"[6] and "Making Sense of the Last 20 Years in New Music",[7] and Don Knabb's "Music for Stargazing",[8] are all used as secondary sources, although depending on usage, the HoS could be interpreted as a primary source. But, note that the HoS article refers to primary sources, such as Mark Prendergast's The Ambient Century, so the HoS webpage even has the appearance of a secondary source in this context. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Since a lot of this depends on how the sources are used, some may be used as primary, others as secondary. I'll take a closer look. —Viriditas | Talk 03:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Parzival418 is correct as originally stated. Primary sources are acceptable if used descriptively, such as quotes, or said this, wrote that.

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." WP:ATT#Primary and secondary sources

Milo 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We weren't discussing whether they were correct or appropriate; we were discussing whether they were used as primary or secondary sources. —Viriditas | Talk 03:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Parzival418 wrote (in statement Viriditas 23:56 quoted): "All we can do is report what primary sources have said about the genres without bias."

Viriditas 23:56 then wrote: "Actually, no, we don't do that. Generally, we use secondary sources to do that, which is what I'm sure you meant to say."

Milo 03:21 wrote: "Parzival418 is correct as originally stated. Primary sources are acceptable if used descriptively..." and quoted WP:ATT#Primary and secondary sources to prove it. Milo 04:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

We tend to favor secondary, not primary sources, and the context of my comment was made in that regard. —Viriditas | Talk 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to comment beginning The Hearts of Space article,... etc...

• Hearts of Space can't be a secondary source, because the owner coined the term "Spacemusic" himself.

• Lloyde Barde is a music writer and the owner of a music distributing comapny who writes his ideas about how music genres are defined. He is a primary source, he even says in his articles that he is making up the ideas he writes about. He has never quoted any other source (that I have been able to find), in regards to how he defines music genres. If you can find a place where he has done so, I would be happy to see it, and then I would modify my statement to allow for that.

• Don Knabb's "Music for Stargazing" -- the word "Ambient" does not even appear in that article. Here is his definition of space music:

My definition is that space music is music that has an "other worldly" quality to it or that would set a mood that is consistent with contemplating the great beyond. Most space music is electronically created. Although space music could be created with acoustic instruments, that would be the exception. If you have been to a planetarium show (and I'm SURE you have been) you have almost certainly heard space music even if you were not aware of it at the time.

In whay way does that support the idea that all space music is ambient?

In addition, he is not a reliable source, he's just a music fan, and does not claim otherwise. Here is how he states his qualifications:

Along with my interest in astronomy I also am a fan of "space music" and the two interests go hand in hand. In this article I'll list a few CDs that I often listen to or associate with stargazing and give you a brief description of each.

In what way do you see that article as a reliable secondary source, as defined in WP:RS? This is not Wikilawyering, I just don't see how a music fan who likes astronomy is qualified secondary source, and on top of that, he does not even mention ambient music in his essay so it does not support the claim anyway.

• Mark Prendergast's The Ambient Century - all it says in the HoS article is this:

The best general treatment of the subject is Mark Prendergast's excellent The Ambient Century.

That does not support any of the topics we are discussing, it only mentions the name of the book. I don't own it (I will soon, because I just now ordered it). I used Amazon to search inside the book and found 34 links to the use of the word genre in the book. In not one of those pages did it mention the words "Space music". Maybe it's in the book somewhere, but if it is, it's not in conjunction with the word "genre." This may be a secondary source, but if we are to treat it that way, someone needs to look inside it and show us the citation with page numbers and a quote. Until then, it's just conjecture.

Did I address all of those to your satisfaction? --Parzival418 _Hello 03:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, these are not my points; I'm just going from the RFC, as I have nothing to do with this source selection and would not have chosen them if given the chance. Second of all, almost everything you have written is debatable. Hearts of Space can be a secondary source, depending on how it is used. If the owner of that site claims that he coined the term that doesn't mean we can't use it as a secondary source if the topic is space music. If the topic was Hearts of Space, then yes, it would be a primary source. The article is an essay regarding space music, so it could be a secondary source. The same holds true for the rest of your points. Also, there is some question about disambiguation; David Dunn's, A History Of Electronic Music Pioneers attributes the origin of the term "space music" to composer Robert Beyer.[9] And, John F. Szwed's definitive biography,Space Is the Place: The Lives and Times of Sun Ra classifies the jazz of Sun Ra as "space music"[10] although the article on Wikipedia calls it "outer-space-themed cosmic jazz". Ekkehard Jost's Free Jazz makes similar claims.[11] Regarding ambient music, there are many reliable sources for the direct relationship between space music as ambient music, including Electronic Music Pioneers by Ben Kettlewell[12][13][14] L. A. Herberlein's, The Rough Guide to Internet Radio classifies Hill's space music as "Ambient/New age".[15].—Viriditas | Talk 04:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Those are interesting sources, thanks, I think I'll check them out on Amazon and maybe get some of them.

I wasn't debating about it, I was just showing you where I got those ideas. It's not a big deal to me if they are primary or secondary sources. If I had known about the sources you provided, I would have left that part out.

We can leave all that part of the dicsussion, we don't need to convince each other about what's primary or not. When I have a chance, I'll change my position statement to get off the primary / secondary thing. That's just a detail.

Maybe that's better anyway, it'll give me more words to go into the most important point, which is the lack of agreement among the sources and the reason the article needs to include multiple definitions (with references).

You've shown that in your note here that there is space music that's not ambient, I agree completely about Sun Ra, his music is jazz, but it's themes are all about outer space and lots of people call it space music, including him. I was getting ready to add him to the lists of notable musicians in the article when Gene reverted my edits and the article stalled with procedural issues and whatever you call what we've been doing for the last few days.

Just to be clear, I do not contend that no sources say the two genres are the same. I'm sure some of the sources do say that. I simply contend that there are also sources that say otherwise, and therefore the article cannot state only one of those versions, it has to include the range of versions, without undue weight.

Thanks for the new references. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

disambiguation sub-section

If your issue of contention is merely disambiguation then we can easily solve this dispute. I sincerely hope that is your primary issue. :) —Viriditas | Talk 05:12, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That would be quite a surprise, but I'm all for an easy solution. I'm not sure I understand how you're using disambiguation in this context though. Would you clarify that so I can get your meaning? Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:44, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DAB. It's good to hear you are interested in resolving this dispute. With that kind of attitude, I think we can do it together. Now, let's get Gene and Milo on board... —Viriditas | Talk 09:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with that usage. I just don't see how it can be used to resolve the dispute. If it will, great. From what I've seen over many months, if in any article on Wikipedia someone writes that space music is not a sub-genre of ambient music, Gene will revert it.

Maybe I'm just being dense right now, but I don't see how a disambiguation page could change that. I'm not being argumentative, I would be happy for this dispute to resolve right now. I just don't understand what you have in mind. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:54, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several ways to disambiguate; a separate page is only one solution; Another method is to use a header. If using a dab page or header will resolve this problem to your satisfaction, we should propose it on the RfC. But, I'm getting the sense that this is not what you mean. Since you have a good handle on the dispute, why don't you tell me how you would ideally resolve it? —Viriditas | Talk 10:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) OK. The way I would resolve it is to follow the policy page on NPOV:

• WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone Because there are multiple viewpoints about how this genre is defined, and the sources do not all agree, we should present the multiple viewpoints.
• WP:NPOV#Article structure They should be presented in the article in the text, not in separate sections. Intertwined, with references, in a discussion of how the words are used and to what they refer.
• WP:NPOV#POV forks and Wikipedia:Content forking The article should not use content forks to separate the two ways of viewing the definitions.

So, what is the problem with that resolution?

Here are a few quotes from Gene over the last few months, from the talk page:

the opening statement as problemmatic, as it does not accurately state that spacemusic is a type of ambient music.

"Ambient" is the term universally applied to certain types of music - including "space music" - today. And that's a fact.

there is still no such thing as spacemusic which is not also ambient. Please ensure that any changes to this article reflect the commonly accepted definition of the term, as confirmed in verifiable third party sources - not peculiar POV definitions that do not reflect reality.

The suggestion that space music is not a genre of ambient is, however, utterly ludicrous.

"space music" is not a musical genre: the term is synonymous with certain types of drone-based or beatless ambient music.

There is simply NO spacemusic that is not also ambient.

Well, that could go on and on. Do you see any chance that he would accept alternate viewpoints in the article? If you can convince him to do so, following the NPOV policies, that would be great. I am happy to include his view among the others. We can even show that there are some sources who agree with him, that all space music is ambient. But we need the other viewpoints too, or the article will be incorrect.

That's why we need the RFC - lots of editors to come here and get in on the conensus, so that the edits can be made without one person stopping them. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you believe my arguments to be false, then you need to produce a cogent counter-argument supported by reliable references to refute it. So far, that has not been forthcoming. --Gene_poole 13:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to refute your personal opinion. You are welcome to think whatever you wish. I'm happy to find out what the community of editors decides about the article in the long run. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:49, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Parzival, I'm much more interested in seeing you edit the article. I would like to work with you to improve it. If there are multiple, reliable sources defining the genre, then please add them to the article. As far as I can see, there is a general definition, possibly a few specific ones, and a number of definitions that need to be disambiguated. This should be very simple to add to the article. Please go ahead and do this. —Viriditas | Talk 08:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your confidence. I'm working on it. --Parzival418 _Hello 09:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

This article may interest you: Sand, Steve. (01-11-2004). "The sky's the limit with ambient music". San Francisco Chronicle. This is one of the most accurate summaries of the space music genre that I've seen, and represents a good secondary source that can be used in the Wikipedia article. —Viriditas | Talk 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, check out the artists and sub-genres included in the Space music collection on Magnatune for some more ideas. —Viriditas | Talk 12:56, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Those references look useful, I'll keep them in mind as the article is being improved. Thanks... --Parzival418 _Hello 11:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

speaking of primary sources...

...one of the sources listed in another editor's position statement is a radio program named Ultima Thule Ambient. That source is so ultra-primary that it is actually the same editor himself. He controls and programs all of the music played on that show. This is not a secret - it's well-known among editors who are know him. He has a Wikipedia article about the show and used to link to it on his user page though that's removed now.

Seems to me, using one's own personally published opinions as a reference - to prove that one's position is correct - is a solid conflict of interest. Do you agree? Would it be fair for you ask him to remove that one link? --Parzival418 _Hello 03:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends. WP:COI covers this type of problem. Where can I find the link? —Viriditas | Talk 04:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Mostly it's in WP:V and WP:RS. But to be clear, I'm not saying he has a conflict of interest that would prevent him from editing the article, that's what WP:COI is about.

I do not mean this as a Wikipedia policy issue, I'm not making any demands about it. I'm just looking at it in the plain light. He decides what to play on the show. Then he refers to the show as an example of a third-party source that supports what he is saying. It's not a third-party source, it's him.

He could include a simple disclosure, for example: "Hearts of Space, Stars End, Echoes, and the show that I program myself, Ultima Thule Ambient." That would then not be a conflict of interest, because it would be out in the open. But using his show as proof of what he contends, without revealing it's his show,... well... do you feel OK about that?

As I think about this some more, maybe it's not important. One more radio show in a list will not make the difference in the long run for the RFC.

I'll leave this to your discretion and I won't bug you about it whatever you choose. You decide if it's OK or not, if it should be disclosed, and whether or not you want to address it. Fair enough? --Parzival418 _Hello 05:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

By link, I mean, where is the editor in question using a link to his website in the article as a source for disputed material? Am I missing it? If it is being used in that way, then yes, it could be a problem. —Viriditas | Talk 09:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is here in his position statement. It's a Wikilink to the article about his show, Ultima Thule Ambient. The name George Cruickshank on that page is Gene. (I'm not "outing" him, this is known on Wikipedia, it's not a secret.) --Parzival418 _Hello 11:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Right, but it's not used in the article as a source. —Viriditas | Talk 11:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, correct. I was only referring to the statement in the RFC, not the article. A question of adding weight to the argument. But like I said, I don't think it will affect the outcome of the RFC, so we can just drop it. I don't want to start up any more drama. --Parzival418 _Hello 11:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Space music primary sources

We seem to be somewhat confused as to what constitutes a primary source here. Lloyde Barde is a music distributor. He is not a musician or record producer (which would make him a primary source). However, due to his longterm business operations and encyclopedic familiarity with the ambient genre he does constitute an authoritative secondary source. Likewise, myself, John Diliberto and Chuck van Zyl are all authoritative secondary sources. None of us is a musician, commercial music producer or comercial radio producer. Even Forrest, who runs the only commercial radio show and music label between the lot of us does not simply programme his own label's releases. Suggesting that ambient music radio programme producers are primary sources is as utterly ridiculous as suggesting Karl Haas is a primary source for classical music. A primary source is an author, creator or publisher. Commentators, distributors and programme producers are not primary sources - and we certainly should not be excluding multiple authoritative sources from our deliberations simply because they do not align with a single non-authoritative source's opinion. The bottom line here is that the common understanding of the term "space music" in the world today, and the overwhelming weight of available evidence on the subject supports the contention that its "a type of ambient music", and that the terms are largely interchangeable. WP is not here to re-define terminologies that individual editors disagree with, or give equal or undue weight to unique, minority original research or viewpoints (although they can certainly be noted if they are in any way notable) - we are here to document subjects as they are commonly defined today. --Gene_poole 13:15, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Was that the royal "We" form of address you used? Or did you mean "We" in the usual sense, as in "all of us." including yourself?

I'm not confused at all, I have a clear understanding of the definitions of primary and secondary sources. You seem to have an interpretation that does not match mine. And without further discussion, we don't know how other editors would interpret the use of those policy words.

But none of this affects the article any more, so we don't need to debate it. Before you wrote your comment, I had already infomed Viriditas that I was dropping the primary / secondary issue and would modify my statement at the RFC. I also withdrew my concern about your radio show being in your list of examples because I don't think one more name in a list will affect the outcome of the RFC.

I'm interested in fairly representing valid sourced alternate viewpoints in the article though. So I'm pleased to see that you concur that "they can certainly be noted if they are in any way notable". --Parzival418 _Hello 22:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Parzival, you should give it a go on the article itself. —Viriditas | Talk 08:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Parzifal you are extremely confused. You seem to think that anyone who writes about a subject about which they possess an informed mainstream opinion, or on which they have conducted research, is a primary source. This is wrong. Totally and incontrovertibly wrong. The term has a very specific meaning, and you cannot "interpret" it in some other way, any more than you can "interpret" black as white or a gigantic as tiny.

Thank you for telling me what it is that I think. If not for you explaining it to me, I would be still thinking that I had thought something else. But now I know better. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

In the context of WP a primary source is a source which is directly owned by or linked to the subject of an article. Thus, the Hearts of Space website is a primary source for information about the Music From the Hearts of Space radio show, because it reflects the opinions of the owners and staff of that particular business. Stephen Hill is another primary source because he owns the business. However, if Lloyd Barde writes an article about Music from the Hearts of Space that doesn't say anything particularly controversial, and which is thought or known to be generally factually correct and well-informed on its subject, then that article is a reliable third party source. It cannot be a primary source because it was written by someone who is outside the Hearts of Space business. --Gene_poole 09:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing with me your interpretation of WP:V#Sources and WP:OR#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Now, when I want to know what the policies are, I can just look at my talk page and I won't need to click around on all those complicated links. --Parzival418 _Hello 10:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for showing me that it's my problem if you have trouble expressing your thoughts clearly.

Thank you for showing me that if I disagree with a dictionary-defined term I can just "interpret" it so it means whatever I want it to mean. --Gene_poole 08:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad I was able to help. --Parzival418 _Hello 08:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Dabneeded tag

Please don't remove tags simply because you personally disagree with them. It gives the impression that you are engaging in WP:OWN. I've presented my reasoning in two separate sections, namely, there is a need to disambiguate between spacemusic of HoS, Space music (Stockhausen), Space music (Sun Ra), and Space music (Grateful Dead). These are not all the same things. —Viriditas | Talk 12:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

And just so I'm clear, this tag is only a recommendation. It doesn't mean that the current article must become a primary dab. I honestly don't think you, Milo, or Gene will support it, which is why I think it is a good idea; it's a true compromise. —Viriditas | Talk 12:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I started to reply and our wires got crossed. So I wrote some of this before I saw your second and third notes.

First I wanted to apologize for removing the tag. It surprised me because we'd discussed it and there was not movement towards the idea of doing it, so I removed it by reflex - it would have been better to talk with you about it first.

Second, thanks for your retraction about that. If you really want the tag, go ahead and place it, but I'd rather not DAB this page.

I don't think it's obvious at all that those musics are different. This is not WP:OWN, I'm not inserting unneeded stuff just to make a point. I know HoS is not going to play Sun Ra or the Dead. Of course not. But if there had been no Sun Ra and no Grateful Dead and no Stockhausen, we don't know if HoS would ever have come along and used that term. It was an evolution. That's why they're in the history section.

As an example of a way I think the DAB would work just fine is if we made a separate article for "Space Music (songs about space)". There's a whole culture of songs like that and I have not added them to the article because they have nothing to do with it. Some of them are country songs or whatever, and that should be in a separate article.

But Sun Ra and the Grateful Dead, and even Pink Floyd for that matter in some of their earlier works, were foreunners of the spacemusic genre. Their music was about consciousness expansion and spatial imagery just like the Stephen Hill show, it was just higher energy and less controlled. But there were times in that earlier music that was sublime and forshadowed the newer genre. That's why I put them in the history section. They really are part of the history. They played their part. Now we've moved on.

The history section isn't done yet. We need to add Eno and some of the more ambient stuff too. --Parzival418 _Hello 13:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thinking about this a little more, I will agree to the removal of the dabneeded tag, if you, Milo, and Gene can come to an agreement about removing the neutrality tag. I've asked Gene to weigh in, but he hasn't responded yet. I want to see this dispute resolved. If you can make that happen, great. —Viriditas | Talk 13:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I certainly agree with you about seeing this resolved. I don't have time to reply further now, but I will consider about the neutrality tag and reply further soon. I'm not just being stubborn, I want the article to be accurate. I have a new idea for a way to include the information so it's less controversial, and some new references from a completely different direction that I will show you as well, I just don't have time to format them now. I'll post that info later today or early tomorrow. Thanks again for your flexibility about the DAB. much appreciated. --Parzival418 _Hello 21:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you can make the article accurate and remove the tags, then do so. —Viriditas | Talk 03:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on it - organizing in advance before posting the updates and new references. Not sure how long it will take; meanwhile I may not post as often as in the last few days, but I'll keep an eye on the discussions and check in if needed. I'll post the new edits & sources when they're ready soon. I'm not going to try and predict the results but I hope for the best. Thanks for the encouragement. --Parzival418 _Hello 05:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

A different disambig article called "Spacemusic" has the problem that someone might put a "merge suggested" tag on it and put things back where they started. If however, everyone will agree to in-article disambig sections for "space music" vs. "spacemusic" vs. "space music (jazz)" then I will have much less problem with the claim of "space music" as a subgenre of ambient, while "spacemusic" merely overlaps it. I wanted to negotiate something like this with Gardener after I learned that the Commonwealth nations had more or less never heard of HoS, but that didn't happen.

A related problem is that if "space music" equals ambient, then that notables list already exists at Ambient. The current list is notables of "spacemusic" verified with the HoS playlist server. Labeling the notables as those of "spacemusic" makes it clearer to readers as to the difference between "space music" and "spacemusic" even though lacking non-HoS sources that know the difference. Milo 05:43, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Milo, those are good points. I'm not sure I know what you mean by " in-article disambig sections" though - do you mean separate article sections, or actual templates that lead to other articles? If we did had article sections, we could split the notable artists list to reside in each section so the HoS part of the list was separate from the historical items, or those could be written within the text of each section.

But that's a small issue compared to the claim that spacemusic is a sub-genre of ambient. It's not the non-HoS historical stuff that's causing the issue. Even if we divide the article and assume that spacemusic is defined by the HoS playlist, the main concern about the definition would still remain. The HoS server is all spacemusic of course, but not all of it is ambient. If we disambig out the jam bands and jazz stuff, etc, we'll still have zen flutes and piano and harp and vocals, and synths with chord progressions and rhythms like Kitaro,... all sorts of things that don't fit in the electronic ambient genre. So that main issue is not solved by disambiguating. If we can resolve that main issue, the disambiguating part is easy, whether we split the article or not. It's such a short article anyway, it seems a bad idea to split it, but that doesn't need to be decided yet.

So I propose that we wait to decide about the disambiguation until after I share that new material I'm collecting, in a couple days. If my idea works, then we don't need to split the article. If it doesn't work and the dispute continue, we can return to the disambiguation discussion. I don't think we need to be in a hurry about that. --Parzival418 _Hello 06:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. —Viriditas | Talk 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been almost a week without any edits. I'm going to consider editing the page and removing the dispute and dab tags if you have nothing to add to the page. —Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas. I've been working on the article off-line which is why you haven't seen edits for a while. I will post the new version in the next day or two. It's much expanded and has lots of reliable source references. As far as the tags : You're welcome to remove the DAB tag, I don't think we need a separate DAB page... hopefully that will be more clear with the new version. I'd prefer to keep the disputed tag on the page for now, but either way, we'll enter a new phase in the next couple days when the new text is posted.

Thanks for the follow-up. I'm interested in your feedback once you see the new approach. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll wait two days for the new version to determine if the dab tag is needed or not. As far as I can tell, there is no need for the dispute tag. —Viriditas | Talk 09:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

space music article update

Parzival418, thanks for the update on the article. I'll take a look at it as soon as I am able. I hope we can resolve any outstanding issues to the satisfaction of everyone. —Viriditas | Talk 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I support adding the photo back in, but I'm afraid someone else will remove it for the same reason. Can you find justification for using the photo in the MoS, guideline, or policy pages? —Viriditas | Talk 22:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked WP:MOS#Images and did not see anything on this one way or the other. It seems not to specifically require that images be directly on-topic, though that surprised me - maybe it's stated elsewhere. I did find this though, that captions are recommended for all images unless their use is obvious or they are "self-captioning", and then it states as follows:

Use captions to explain the relevance of the image to the article.

So, maybe it would work to include the image but change the caption to quote something from the intro, something like this:

Space music often evokes a sense of spatial imagery and emotion or sensations of floating, cruising or flying.

The photo could be an effective way to illustrate those ideas.

What do you think? --Parzival418 _Hello 23:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent idea, but does the image convey that notion? You see, this is why it is so problematic. It would be best to use an album cover of a notable space music artist, like Image:Space Image.jpg. —Viriditas | Talk 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point. Although there might be a fair use problem. Since the album is copyrighted, I think it may be limited to uses in an article about that album, or the band or record label. Check out the fair use warning template on the image page. That's one reason I chose to use a space image which is in the public domain. Another concern is that by showing only one album cover, we might give undue weight to that one artist - in that case maybe several should be shown, which brings in a whole new set of challenges. Using a pure space image takes the commercial element out of the illustration and goes directly to the feeling of the music would evoke. I think we could use the space image if we caption it as above so it fits with the article. There might be a policy against it, but if there is, I haven't been able to find it. If you prefer using an album cover, that's OK with me, but then we should probably read up on the fair use issues - I know they use bots to remove fair use images that don't have valid rationale for use, but public domain images are not limited like that. Either way, it would be nice if the article could have an illustration. --Parzival418 _Hello 23:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you are right, fair use won't allow it. Go with your original idea for the new caption, but I suspect this might change in the future. —Viriditas | Talk 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've restored it with the new caption. We'll see if it bothers anyone. To me it seems appropriate and the new caption ties in well to the article text. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

(←)I don't see how the statement, "Space music has been an effective genre for creating moods in many well-known films" is supported by the Sound on Sound citation. It does say: "...we got into more fancy keyboard styles, and in some ways the music became more professional -- a lot more than just capturing hypnotic and spacey feelings." And it also states that "the German trio had succeeded in making electronic music sound organic and full of adrenalin." Nothing about space music, however. It might be best to just remove the section to the talk page until better sources can be found. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood what you were looking for. I thought you wanted something that showed that the soundtrack to Risky Business sounds like space music, so for that, I found this in the article, in the part where they are specifically talking about the soundtrack of that movie:

repetitive elements that were close to the minimalism of Steve Reich... 'we stumbled upon a minimal kind of thing, like Steve Reich or Philip Glass.

To me, that soundtrack sounds very much like space music, and I thought that quote supports that idea, especially in the context of the the various other references that show that Tangerine Dream's music has been played on the space music radio shows and is even considered by some to be among the originators of spacemusic, and among the top space music albums of all time (per the Echoes reference).

I'm not arguing with you about this, just explaining why I thought the reference was relevant. Maybe I'm still not understanding what kind of reference you want to support the inclusion of the Risky Business soundtrack.

Clearly, space music style of music is often used in soundtracks, for example Vangelis/Blade Runner... more can be found.

I agree with you that section of the article is still embryonic. The lack of additional detail is why I placed the "stub" tag there - because it does need more work. I don't think we should move the whole section to the talk page, because it will get lost there. It would be better to keep it on the main page and ask editors to help make it better. How about if we remove the stub-tag and instead place an {{expand-section}} tag, which is more obvious graphically?

I agree with you that it "sounds very much like space music", however we have to go with the sources, and we should not interpret them. Please continue looking for sources that substantiate this section. —Viriditas | Talk 03:01, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will do so. But unless someone else complains, I don't see any reason to remove the whole section. If you want to keep the -citation needed- tag, that's OK with me. By the way, the general mention of space music being used in soundtracks has been in the article since long before I edited it, I just added the examples and separated it into a section so it can be expanded. Anyway,... I'll continue to seek references about that. --Parzival418 _Hello 03:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, you've managed to source one film. As for Sun Ra in the "notable artists" section, Sun Ra is not considered a notable "space music" artist. He's considered a notable avant garde jazz artist. Do you have evidence that Sun Ra is considered a space music artist? The term he used to describe his music, varied from "space music" to "interstellar music", and neither of them are particularly related to the Ambient/New Age genre but rather space-themed music. Same goes for Grateful Dead. Just because jazz guitarist Charlie Hunter is a fan of Nirvana and plays their songs, doesn't make him a notable alternative rock artist. —Viriditas | Talk 04:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've sourced a few more films as well and will post them soon.

I understand your points about Sun Ra and the Grateful Dead. They're not quite the same, in that the Grateful Dead have been played on HoS and I don't think Sun Ra has been. Both of those acts are not currently music played on space music radio, but they are much more connected to space music than just the theme of outer space. (I have more thoughts on this but don't have time to go into it right now.)

In the meantime, If your concern is to prune the notable artists list, I don't mind if you remove the Grateful Dead and Sun Ra from the list - but they should definitely stay in the prose of the History section as they are very much a part of the evolution of the term. OK? --Parzival418 _Hello 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Technical note: the references to those two artists in the notable artists list are named, and also used in the text of the History section. So if you remove them from the notable list, the references need to be moved to the appropriate place in the History prose section so they don't disappear. Thanks. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way... I see the notable artists list as a temporary section of the article - it should be replaced by a more focused list or chart of notable albums, since lots of those artists have some albums that are space music and other albums that are not. But it will take some time to make that conversion - it needs research and a good approach for formatting it or writing about it. --Parzival418 _Hello 04:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you could spend some time trimming the notable artists section, I would greatly appreciate it. I agree with you about the list or chart; that would work really well. —Viriditas | Talk 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will, but I can't do it instantly. Researching and writing this version used up a lot of time. I do intend to change the list section so that it's not just a list, and will get to it soon. The first step may be to separate artists who do only space music from ones who have some albums that are not space music, then change those artists to list only their specific albums that are space music. While doing that, the less notable artists can be completely removed, and ones that only apply to the history section can be moved into the prose there. So, yes, I will work on that, but it will take some time to research and organize it. --Parzival418 _Hello 18:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Gene Poole's edits

Keep in mind that Gene discussed his edits on the talk page, while you reverted him without responding on talk. That's generally frowned upon; in the future, your position would be stronger if you reverted after responding to his points, not before. —Viriditas | Talk 10:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

of space music

Hi Parzival418,

I left a reply here Ling.Nut 15:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Bernard_Manning

At the risk of escalating things I put a comment at talk naming conventions[16]. But my query is, at what point do you think we should notify user:Iceage77 that a discussion concerning his/her edit is taking place? I feel uncomfortable at the idea of talking 'behind an editors back' although on occasion it is helpful, but mainly when no accusation of bad faith editing has been made. The criteria I have been (unconsciously) using is 'would the editor be upset if he found this discussion about him/her', I feel this point has been reached here - what are your views? sbandrews (t) 07:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right, he should be informed. I guess I assumed he knew about it, but in retrospect, I don't think anyone told him.

I've re-edited my comment on the article talk page to add a link to the WQA report. I'd prefer not to post directly on his talk page, and I don't think that's needed at this point.

Your posting of the question at the naming conventions page could be helpful in bringing more editors to the page, but maybe it would be better not to invite them to WQA and keep the topic focused at the article talk page. Hopefully this alert has been resolved (depending on if Iceage77 responds), but we don't want the place-naming discussion to continue at WQA anyway, that belongs at the article. Maybe it would be a good idea to re-edit your invitation at talk naming conventions, to remove the WQA link... ?

Thanks for bringing this up - good catch! --Parzival418 _Hello 07:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done, good thinking, :) sbandrews (t) 16:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hello Parzival418, and thank you for taking the time to respond to Loom91's request of "What went wrong" (at Integral) with a very detailed and, I might add, wise guide on how to avoid escalating conflicts on Wikipedia and make editing a smoother process for everyone. I would like to ask your permission to copy the bulk of it, with exception of the personal identifiers, into another page, for the ease of reference in case of flare-ups at other articles. This is almost a required reading for warring parties in any conflict. Coupled with a mutual willingness to search for a compromise (which may require a little humility), it would go a long way towards making editing more productive.

I think that you have misunderstood my request to KieferSkunk to "stop putting coals back into (hopefully, extinguished) fire". His contributions had been very valuable, but once the situation calmed down, in my opinion, it would have been counterproductive to keep quoting wikipedia policies and insisting on going to RfC for more editors that can participate in the dispute, rather than just stepping back and letting the emotions evaporate, then restarting editing with a clean slate. In this instance, my firm impression is that quite a few people were watching this quickly escalated dispute in dismay, hoping that non-interference would lead to the quickest resolution, and breathing a sigh of relief when the hostile exchanges ended. Best regards, Arcfrk 04:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arcfrk, thanks for your note; I appreciate that you would like to use my comments for future reference. Certainly, you are welcome to do so. if you do and you happen to think of it, please inform me of the link so I can see how you use them. I've found myself typing similar thoughts many times in responding to Wikiquette alerts or otherwise helping editors extract themselves from needlessly extended disputes. After all that typing, I'm planning some kind of essay or guideline on this subject. Maybe some of your revisions to the text could be included. If you like, when I have a draft in progress, I'll let you know and you would be welcome to offer your ideas as well.

Thanks also for clarifying your comments in regards to KieferSkunk. My concern when I saw your note on his talk page was in particular this part: I understand your desire to help, but the effect seems likely quite opposite of your intentions. I now understand that you did not mean to indicate his help was not appreciated.

Aside from all that... good to meet you; I look forward to seeing the Integral article continue its positive trajectory. I studied mathematical logic and set theory in college - calculus was not my strongest math subject, but it's fun to revisit it with a new point of view! --Parzival418 _Hello 06:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parzival and Arcfrk. I appreciate the comments from both sides as well. I understood Arc's comments to mean that I was no longer adding particular value to that discussion, not that my help was unappreciated. Still, it's nice to see this clarified. Thanks.

Loom91 is still making edits that are being reverted in Integral, and he claims now that he has attempted to start consensus discussions and gotten no replies to some of them, and non-helpful replies to others. I've officially bowed out of the dispute on all sides, since I don't think I can do anything more at this point, and I referred Loom to RfC and mediation if he feels the need to continue the discussion. I also mentioned that it appears his edits are not along the lines of the current consensus (though I requested that User:KSmrq and Cronholm take a little time to briefly summarize what the current consensus actually is, since it seems ambiguous at least to me), and that he is unlikely to make much headway against the other editors at this time. If you're able to help out further, that'd be awesome.

Thanks again. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your comments. I particularly liked the BRD page, that's how I usually like to edit. Loom91 18:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Narcissism of small differences

[moved conversation to Zeraeph's page] --Parzival418 _Hello 03:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everything told you by an editor, no matter how authoritatively, is necessarily true. Books dealing, in major and minor ways, with the narcissism of small differences for your edification... http://books.google.com/books?q=%22narcissism+of+small+differences%22&btnG=Search+Books some 200 of them have limited content concerning the term available on Google Books - and all listings have information enabling inter-library loan to put them in your hands within days to weeks Kiwi 12:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I remember rightly, User:A Kiwi is something of a fan of Sam Vaknin[17], but the fact remains that Sam Vaknin's Article was about something quite different to Freud's "Narcissism of Small Differences", and, as a self published financial analyst with no qualifications in psychology, Sam Vaknin doesn't meet WP:RS anyway...on the other hand...the link to google books is quite different to anything I deleted last night and might be very useful. Keep her away from her weakness for Sam Vaknin and Kiwi is usually very good at digging up real sources... :o) --Zeraeph 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi,

sorry I didn't contact you right away. This is a somewhat mad time for me, and I've been trying to do a million things at once, so I haven't been giving WP my full attention. I do appreciate your assistance, though, and should have told you so right away. That situation was a huge drain on me, and I'm glad it seems to be over.

Exploding Boy 20:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Geodesium

Speedy tag removed. Precious Roy 19:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Harald Bode

Good work on Harald Bode. I did a little cleanup and added a ref, but it needs more work. I've redirected Melochord to Bode for now, and that particular invention should be expanded on the Bode page until it gets large enough for its own article. —Viriditas | Talk 01:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I saw the cleanup work you did there too, looks better. And good idea to redirect Melochord there.

We have a couple more new articles that came out of the space music work too - I was getting ready to work on the notable artists section to prune the list or turn it into prose, or a chart, so I decided to check out the red-linked artist Geodesium. Turns out that guy is notable, so I started an article about him. It took my time away from the notable artists list, but he's definitely worthy of an article, so it seemed like a good trade-off. (I'll come back to the notable artists lists soon when I can)

I also started Space-themed music, as a result of your idea to add the DAB to space music. There was no article about "music about outer space", so, now there is! It's a bit messy and done very fast, but it has some good info and I think can eventually become a good article. Turns out there are a lot of space hobbyists who love that kind of stuff. Some of the text I wrote from scratch, and some of it I found on an earlier space music "tentative version" that Gardner of Geda wrote. He had no references so I googled for those.

Before the space music project, I didn't think about if it would lead to new articles, and now there's three already! The new articles are all start-class and need more references, but they're worthy and even fit into some projects and categories.

By the way, thanks a lot for your help with space music. Hopefully the problems won't resume, but whatever happens next I wanted to let you know that your help with formatting the RfC and keeping the discussions on track made a big difference and is much appreciated. --Parzival418 _Hello 01:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, but you did most of the work, so I should be thanking you. I really want to get Gene and Milo on board, and until I do, I probably won't be satisfied. —Viriditas | Talk 21:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Defenses of Velikovsky

I'm pleased to see that you've deleted links to two ;self-published essays that contain no references or third-party sources". Have you read Talk:Immanuel Velikovsky on this topic, both under the sub-head 'Defenses of Velikovsky' and 'Ted Holden material linked'? You may want to expand there on your rationale for deletion - or simply wait for further salvos. (BTW, your deletions have left an empty section under the sub-head 'Defenses of Velikovsky', which you may want now to delete - or perhaps leave as mute testimony to the paucity of defenses of Velikovsky.) -- Jmc 02:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help. I came to the page from the WP:WQA alert posting. I did read the talk page discussions and then looked at the references, including downloading the PDF. I'm not an expert in this subject, but it was clear even to me that those references do not meet WP:RS or WP:V, so I deleted them on that basis and not based on my knowledge of the subject. I figured that my edit summary was clear enough, not needing a talk page comment. I've got a lot going on with other articles so didn't want to totally dive in to the debate.

About the empty "Defenses" section - I did notice that and decided to leave it, to make it clear that I was not removing the references because I think there is no defense, but rather that the references themselves are defective. It is kind of funny seeing the empty section there now,... maybe that's appropriate, or if not, others are welcome to remove it if they wish. --Parzival418 _Hello (time stamp lost in edit glitch)

He reverted my change. So this time, I posted a comment on the talk page, and re-removed the unreliable source reference again. He reverted again and added another uncivil comment. I posted a reply but I did not revert.

Please see my additional note at WP:WQA. It looks to me like he reverted at least five times in one day. If you review the diffs I posted and concur, I recommend you report him for 3RR. His actions are disruptive and his comments are uncivil. --Parzival418 _Hello 07:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

status: offline

That image of a fiddler is classic! —Viriditas | Talk 10:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi - yeah, a total classic! Glad you enjoyed it! --Parzival418 _Hello 07:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Generations reformatting

I posted to the Wikipedia:Templates for Deletion#Template:Generations a suggestion to reformat this awful table into a useful navigation box. I'd be interested in your thoughts at the tfd.  ∴ Therefore  talk   12:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've added some thoughts there. The nav box is way better, but there are still concerns about OR, even in the individual articles linked. If those articles are improved with references, the nav box could be a useful tool. Good work on the design. --Parzival418 _Hello 19:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no vested interest in the content. I came across a page with this table (also repaired a deficiency in the {Great awakenings} template that was completely messing with the format due to a non-terminating table) and had to see if there was a way to make it less obtrusive and then discovered the tfd. ∴ Therefore | talk 19:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

from user Mbz1

Hello, Looks, like you've got it right. It is why I felt they are harrasing me, because they've undone not only my talk page, but everything else I was doing. I was crying all the time, I could not sleep. I asked them, if the contest of my talk page was more important than my health. Nothing helped. Few minutes ago I've blanked my talk page again (just to check them out), and before I was able to finish the message on the users alert page my talk page was back there. So can I or cannot I blank my own talk page when I feel like doing it? Thank you. By the way about my so called "uncivility" at the sample fir0002 listed here. Agree I should have been more civil, but I do have a mitigating circumstance (I have not started uncivil behavior first). One user called me "a pain", other user blaimed me "in vandalism", yet one more user(fir0002) advised me to use eyeglasses and made a comment about my spelling.Thank you for your time and maybe a litlle bit undestanding.--Mbz1 16:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

Hello. I have replied to your comments and the others at the WQA alert. --Parsifal _Hello 19:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Separately, I just wanted to express my admiration for all you've written in that alert. Very well written, very thorough and very fair to all parties involved. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• • Here've go again.User:Cacophony has done it again restored my talk page(for the 26th time). Would you help me,Parsifal, please? I have nobody else to turn to. Thanks.--Mbz1 23:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)Mbz1

I have entered additional comments at WQA. The situation seems much improved. Thank you for accepting my advice; that was helpful. Good luck and best wishes. --Parsifal _Hello 07:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Why haven't you added your new infobox to space music? —Viriditas | Talk 08:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viriditas... I think your message here crossed with a message I added today at the Space music talk page about this.

I decided not to add the infobox because I couldn't figure out a way to get the internal content to work for Space Music. The infobox is made for traditionally defined music genres, but Space music includes so many types of music that if we put them all in the box it would get too big. For example the article section on Variety of Space music styles, there are something like 30 genres listed. Since the infobox is made for hierarchical genres, I don't see where those would go - they're not sub-genres, and they're not parent genres - they're grouped under the umbrella of space music when they're played with certain other music in a radio show or collection, but that's a different axis of organization than the traditional way genres are defined. That's what's been so hard about this article in general.

And I have a concern that if we put the infobox in the article, it could become a target of edit warring, as people may disagree about each word inside the box, and perhaps certain people might try to make the infobox define the term space music in a way that does not have support from the references or from the content of the article. Then we'd have to go through the the whole process again, and maybe even need to assign footnotes to items inside the infobox - that would take a lot of time and result in a complicated and unattractive infobox.

So, that's why I didn't add the template. If you can think of a way to do it while avoiding the above issues, I am open to further discussion. I'm not opposed to the idea of it in general if we can figure out a way to make it work and find a way to solve those issues. --Parsifal _Hello 18:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I independently came to the same conclusion when I saw the draft infobox. It's wikipolitically unwise to attempt shoehorning Space music into an infobox schema, which does not anticipate that segued collections of pieces from up to 30 other genres would synergistically evoke the identity of a stand-alone genre. Under these circumstances, Space music could experience yet more contentious debate, and more demands for hierarchical conformity, risking the info-distorting effects of a Procrustean bed. Milo 05:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be that big of a deal. A simple infobox pointing to the primary genres would suffice. —Viriditas | Talk 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Young Users

Hi, Parsifal. I don't know that I have much to add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Young Users, but I'll keep an eye on the page as it develops. Vitas was so obviously well intentioned that I felt he needed some guidance. I hope that between the userfication and possible transfer to TARDIS Wiki, he'll be able to live with the AfD decision. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 13:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Work in progress

Template:Work in progress has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons disease

Thank you for your comments on the discussion page. I see that you know that I was blocked. I was unblocked, but I am concerned about trying to edit the article again. If you read the discussion page, an unbiased person noted that anyone who believes that Morgellons is "real" is subjected to more hostility and anger than he's ever seen before in any wiki aritcle and I've certainly found this to be the cause. I'm not sure what to do, because I believe any efforts I make to try to balance the article will be unsuccessful. I was wondering if you could read the following quote from the CDC and give me your opinion. The editors keep insisting that the prevailing opinion is that the disease is delusional. They primarily rest their case on three letters to the editor in dermatology journals and articles that use these letters as a basis to form their opinion. It was already determined by Flysee that these letters are unacceptable to be included. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

http://www.fbo.gov/spg/HHS/CDCP/PGOA/Reference%2DNumber%2D2007%2DMorgellons/Attachments.htmlPez1103 05:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I've added the CDC citation and moved the more important CDC information to the top of that section where it's easier to read.

I won't be able to continue working on this so much though. My time is limited. It's important for you to find an experienced editor who can help on a regular basis, as Durova suggested, at Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User.

Regarding editors on the talk page seeming hostile to you and about the condition in general, I did notice that, and honestly I don't understand why.

Regarding editors who "keep insisting that the prevailing opinion is that the disease is delusional"... They do have a point - most doctors are not even aware of the disease. I looked it up on some medical sites and found that they mostly assume it is a form of DP.

However, that does not mean that the condition doesn't have a physical cause, it just means that no-one has been able to identify it yet so we don't know. Hopefully the CDC will come up with some solid evidence and then the next steps can happen.

Because of the block, it's going to take a while to start feeling more confident again. Don't worry about the article. On Wikipedia, if an article goes off-track, it can be fixed later - everything stays in the history. Once you have a mentor, you can set up an article WP:RFC as Durova suggested. More editors will come and create consensus. There will always be some things about the article you don't like, but at least it can be more fair to all sides..

I suggest you re-read the basic policy articles: WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS. Get familiar with them. They are the foundation of how editors collaborate. If you embrace the policies, you will have better results.

Try editing other articles that have nothing to do with this. Get some practice on topics that are not emotionally charged for you. You may enjoy it and it will help you learn about how to work with the other editors.

One other suggestion - I've noticed you often enter a comment, then go back and modify or delete it, or replace it with a new one. That's OK, but it can confuse people. Also it leaves your previous versions in the page history where anyone can read them. Try writing first on your computer in a text file. Then when you have it the way you want it, copy it onto the Wikipedia page all at once and you won't need to change it as many times.

Don't forget, most important: discuss the articles, not the editors.

I'll keep the page on my watchlist in case things start to heat up again, but I won't be able to provide ongoing support for you as an advisor or mentor because I just don't have the time. Make sure to sign up at WP:ADOPT and find a mentor.

You're welcome to contact me with a question or to point out a problem, but please don't feel bad if I'm not able to respond right away or in great detail.

Best Wishes with your quest. --Parsifal _Hello 07:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your help Pez1103 11:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that you don't have the time, and I understand, but if you watch, you will see that your edits will be quickly removed with superfical justification. I've added this quote before. First they will say it's too much quoted material and paraphraze it, then they will deleted important portions of it, then they will use weasel words to change the meaning. It will take an army of editors to keep this article neutral -- even accurate. I would like to have Herd blocked from the article entirely. He runs a website completely devoted to debunking Morgellons. His edits are all one sided and distort the facts. I don't know how to block him tho. Hopefully, whoever adopts me can help. Pez1103 12:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's see what happens. I don't think there is any valid reason to remove that quote. If it's removed, I will not just ignore it.

As far as Herd, I think you are not quite right about him. I read his website and while I agree he has an agenda,but I don't think he is doing major edits to the article right now, because he is concerned about his COI problem. Read the conversation I had with him in the section on the talk page about his website.

Anyway, like I said, don't worry about the long run. Wikipedia is resilient and even if the article gets bad for a while, it can still be fixed. Eventually, there will be more editors reviewing it. At that point, we'll have to go with the WP:CONSENSUS. But I expect the result will be a balanced article fairly presenting all the viewpoints. That's the best you can hope for; it will never present just one side of it - unless the scientific evidence changes and the disease is accepted by the medical establishment. If that happens the article will change a lot. --Parsifal _Hello 17:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you notice, every single quote that says it is delusional was moved to the begining of the article. Pez1103 22:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed. But overall, I think the article is still OK. The CDC information is very clear and there is a lot about the research, with references. Keep in mind, this is a Wikipedia article, it's not your life's work. As I understand it, you work for or with the MRF. That's where you can do your personally important work. This article will be what it is. Hopefully it will stay neutral, or maybe it will go one way or the other if there are too many editors pushing it. Over time, the CDC and other researchers will figure out the science of the condition. That's the important thing. Meanwhile, we'll try to keep the article fair, but it will change from time to time. Once you work with your adoptor for a while, you may be able to start participating on the talk page again, according to your agreement with Durova (whatever you agreed with him, I am not aware of the details). Anyway, meanwhile, try not to worry about it. It will be OK. --Parsifal _Hello 07:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your input and for your comments on the morgellons page. I just read your comments on this page. I did make a comment on the morgellons discussion page earlier. I stated where I thought that bias still exists, but I did not make any changes to the article itself. I did ask for someone to adopt me, but I didn't realize that I was precluded from making comments until someone actually adopted me. I was just planning not to make any actual changes to the article until someone adopted me. I don't think that I had an agreement with Durova per se, she just suggested that I ask for someone to adopt me. Pez1103 15:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I did not mean you were prohibited from making comments on the talk page before you are adopted, I got that idea from something that you said previously. If that's not part of your agreement with Durova, then it's certainly not a Wikipedia rule... That's pretty much how Herd is handling it now too.

I'm going to be winding down my involvement soon, and I do think an adopter is a good idea. Eventually the article should have an WP:RFC to bring more editors and break up the stuck dynamic of interaction. Best Wishes --Parsifal _Hello 17:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

the wording of your adoption request

Hi Pez - I suggest you modify the text of your adoption request. I'm writing this here on my page instead of on yours so the prospective adopters see your comments first rather than mine.

Instead of writing about how frustrated you are with the article, think about the person who is finding your request. They are a volunteer who is offering to help someone they don't know, which will take a lot of time,... what are they getting out of it? What is their motivation?

They want to help new editors become good, well-skilled editors, but the way you wrote your request it sounds like it will be a very painful and difficult process. You even said that you are "warning" them.

That doesn't sound like much fun. You will get better results if you change your request to make it feel more positive, and not just focused on the one article. Adoption is not about getting help with one article, it's about improving as an editor, learning the ways of Wikipedia so you can function more effectively.

Here's what you wrote:

Per the advice of Durova and Parsifal, I am requesting that someone adopt me. There is a lot of hostility geared towards anyone who doesn't believe that Morgellons is delusional -- as noted by Parsifal and others on the board. I need an impartial editor to get involved to facilitate the creation of an article which will truly have a NPOV. I am warning anyone who is open to adopting me, there is a lot of mean spirited hostility on this page and it will be time consuming, but this is very important. According to the CDC,this is a newly emerging public health concern. A biased article hurts thousands of families who are currently suffering from this disease. Thanks for your help.

I suggest something like this would be better:

Per the advice of Durova and Parsifal, I am requesting to be adopted so I can learn how to handle difficult editing situations more effectively. One of the articles I edit has a lot of POV-pushing going on and I need help understanding how to make the article more NPOV without getting sidetracked into edit wars and arguments. I don't know how to respond or interact with other editors who have an agenda that is not neutral. I need to learn what to do when that happens. Also, I've been advised to try a WP:RFC and need to learn how to do that. I hope to find an adopter who can help me learn how to be more effective as a Wikipedia editor especially in challenging situations. Thank you!

You're welcome to use that as-is or personalize it however you wish. Or, just stick with your original one if you prefer, it's totally your choice.

Another thing you could try is browsing the list of available adopters at the WP:ADOPT page and if you see one that you think might be right for you, you can contact them directly instead of waiting for them to find you.

Once you are adopted, make sure to tell them about your COI noticeboard case and what happened leading up to your request for adoption so they get the big picture. Good luck! --Parsifal _Hello 07:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the changes. I did reach out to two editors, but they didn't respond, or maybe they did and I can't figure out how to check. 10:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont' you believe that it is biasing the article that they took the DOP quotes and removed them from the DOP section and stuck them in the background section? Don't you believe it is biasing the article to take the DOP statement from the Nature article, but remove the quote from the article that supports the idea that it not DOP? Dont' you find the intro odd -- comparing it to CFS and DP rather than just defining what the disease is -- per the CDC's website? These editors definately have an agenda. It would take all day, every day to try to make the article neutral. No one has that kind of energy. I couldn't tell what was happening from the discussion page -- did they cut down the CDC quote? Didn't I tell you that would happen? This is an important article. The foundation reaches out to scientists, politicians and donors to ask them to help, they read this article and don't want to get involved. This article hurts children who are very ill. I think that the article should be deleted entirely because there is no way to make it unbiased when so many people have an agenda Pez1103 11:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment from Fyslee regarding Pez1103

Fyslee, Please don't use my page for communicating with Pez, or for arguing about the Morgellons article. If you want to communicate with me, you are welcome to post messages here.

I have two interests in this situation, as a Wikipedia editor who works on dispute resolution and maintaining general policy standards:

(1) I want Pez to get adopted by an experienced user so Pez can learn about how Wikipedia works and find a better way to edit. If the problems you wrote about are happening, the adopter will figure it out and within the adoption relationship might be able to make a difference. But that will not involve me directly.

(2) I want to help the article attain NPOV and see if it's possible to move the disruptive editing to collaboration and consensus. Pez is not the only editor at that page who is edit warring. I've seen multiple examples of POV-pushing there, in the huge talk page and archives, and on the page itself. The article flops around every day between different viewpoints, with every small point or reference being manipulated to prove whatever someone wants to prove. That is out of line and was happening even while Pez was blocked. There are a few relatively neutral editors there, luckily, and if not for them the situation would be even worse.

I am a scientific skeptic. I believe in evidence-based medicine. However, as a skeptic I also believe that until something has been proven not to be true, we can't assume one way or the other, all we can say is we don't know.

I tell you this so you don't get the wrong idea about any edits or comments I've made that might seem to support the position Pez has taken, or that of the MRF. I do not support anyone's position, but I do consider that there is enough reliable source information to have an article about this condition, and that the article needs to present all sides and not simply be a debunking of the the MRF. I'm glad the CDC will investigate and that others are questioning about this besides just the MRF. I'm sure it will go slowly, but eventually I hope that evidence will show one way or the other if it is a type of DP or a physical disease with an organiz cause that can be treated.

In the meantime, I make no assumptions or interpretations.

The article must be neutral and valid references must be fairly included on all sides of the question.

As I mentioned above, you are welcome to discuss this with me here, but please do not use my page as a forum for communicating with Pez.--Parsifal _Hello 00:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. I see we share a number of concerns and POV as fellow skeptics. My main concern in this situation is the actions of that editor. The other editors understand NPOV enough to be able to collaborate, but the actions of this editor pull so strongly in one direction, without any hopes in sight (unless adoption can help) for progress, that there is an opposite reaction that would not exist if that editor didn't WP:OWN the article. When that editor isn't around, collaboration then takes over and we hammer out a way to present all sides of the situation. Let's hope adoption will help. -- Fyslee/talk 06:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons RfC

If you think it would be a good idea, I could start one today. John Carter 20:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, good idea. Though maybe it might be better if we review a few of the points first though. I just got in and saw the recent conversations on the talk page.

I can't be online right now but will be back later today and will contact you then. I think I can offer some insights on the situation. Anyway - it's up to you if you want to proceed now with the RFC or wait until we have a chance to pow-wow a bit first.

By the way, if you're wondering - I'm not directly involved with the article, I came there as a result of a WP:WQA where I help out a lot with dispute resolution issues.

Thanks for offering to help with this. I'll be back in a couple hours or so. --Parsifal _Hello 01:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Would you mind undoing this edit? I had replaced the "watt" tag with the "RFC" tag earlier, and you've actually removed the RFC tag :) >Radiant< 09:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons

Hi - How can I get unbiased editors to consider the following? I cannot keep up trying to edit this article -- I am neglecting my health and my child. This article needs the help. I think that this needs to go to dispute resolution, but I don't know how to proceed.

[cross-posted material removed]

Pez1103 11:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pez, when you write me a note about something you also post on the article talk page, please do not duplicate the entire post here on my page. Instead just include a link to the post so I can read it there. If you don't know how to do that, just tell me where you posted it.

As far as dispute resolution, that is already happening. That's what the RFC tag is doing, where it appears on the talk page here. There are also a couple new editors there, including Thatcher131, who is a respected administrator with a lot of experience.

I might continue with the talk page discussion a bit, but I can't help you as your advocate or adopter, I've already put in more time on this than I should have, so I'm sorry, you need to ask others to help you. I advise you to continue your conversations with John Carter, he seems interested and skillful, and EdJohnston is another editor I respect who has experience with dispute resolution and NPOV.

Good luck. --Parsifal _Hello 17:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Music articles - music genres

Hello, I'm very sorry for not joining anymore any discussions related to those infamous articles in the music genres field. I haven't left Wikipedia, just I'm not interested in wasting my time with ppl whose behaviour is near to a teenage fan and that is unaware of any formal, stylistic and logical requirements that are needed to write good articles in an Encyclopedic context. One big example is all that crap regarding subgenres, fusion genres and so on. Who says that there such sub-fusion-blablabla--genres are real? Where are the sources? I can't imagine Encarta or other serious sites posting these blatant lies. Communities based upon Wikipedia, MySpace, fansites and software-related-forums are not reliable third party sources.--Doktor Who 11:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi - It's good to hear from you and I hope all is well. I haven't seen you around for a few months and was wondering if you had left.

I'm not sure which articles you're referring to about the subgenres, fusion genres and so on. Which are the ones where you see the problems?

Space music article is much improved. I did a lot of research and work on it and found solid references, then rewrote most of it personally. An experienced editor, Viriditas, helped to mediate in the conflict with the same person who was causing the problems before. There was a lot of arguing but now that there are reliable sources, the article no longer pretends that ambient music and space music are the same thing.

If you want to read about it, there is a long talk page on that article, and also on my talk page above. We also did a WP:RFC about the article and that's onthe talk page there too.

If you want to make any big changes to Space music, please discuss it with me here, or on the article talk page. We want to be careful to avoid sparking off another round of disruptive editing problems that was happening so much there. The disruptive editor has been away for a couple weeks but he will return shortly, so we need to make sure that everything in that article is supported by references as it is now. He was very upset by the changes and before his trip he was still trying to make the article say that space music is part of ambient music, though the references do not support that. --Parsifal _Hello 19:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not going to change that article. Just please delete everything that quotes that Mr G. C. You should know he's not real. After that, I'll be very pleased to help you with any valuable information I can access.Doktor Who 20:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know if G C is real or not, but the quotes are included because they are printed in a magazine interview. If I remove those, then others would complain that valid references have been removed and there's no justification for removing them, or he might then try to remove other references that are important and should not be removed. We should just not pay any more attention to him unless it can't be avoided. --Parsifal _Hello 20:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no printed magazine, there is just an hoax site. If you have any magazine, please send me at my home address (I will give you in a private e-mail).Doktor Who 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yes, you're right it's not a magazine, it's a website. But it's been around for 7 years and has interviews with lots of real people. Are you saying those interviews are all fake? (by the way, my next reply will be slower, I'll be offline for a while) --Parsifal _Hello 20:55, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not seven years, I knew everythin on ambient music sites, it wasn't here on the web before. It's a faked site, anyone can do that. This crap began in 2004, you should know.-Doktor Who 23:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that the guy who says he runs that website, Michael Foster, is lying and that all those interviews with artists are not real? That's an amazing amount of work. Why is he doing that? --Parsifal _Hello 01:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason is always the same: money+fame.

The word "ambient" works fine as a slogan in music business, and you can sell everything you want: celtic, folk, tribal, "chill out", lounge, trsnce, goa (ould), cafe' del mar, buddha bar, new age, drones, .... everything! Nice short way to gain success, and sell stuff: just label this crap with "ambient". Every music with some sort of "ambience" is labelled as ambient. Btw, the time is over, none provided reliable source regarding the term ambient music, so its current intro can be deleted, finally.Doktor Who 02:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolls

I can't understand why you haven't deleted any reference to that hoax-troll at Space music. I am still waiting that someone will decide to block and bann "him" indefinetely and delete all the articles that "he" wrote. Doktor Who 11:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a long story. You can read the discussions on my talk page and on the article talk page. But it's not about getting him blocked or banned, a block usually only lasts a short time, and a ban is a big deal, and not likely. The best thing to do is just not let him bug us, don't punch the tar baby.

Space music is much better now. I wrote the new version with much research; Milo made many improvements as well, and Viriditas has also been a big help in keeping it neutral and keeping the discussion on track

As far as the troll behavior, once we had so many references, it was hard for him to change the article to his personal POV. I'm too jaded to think the drama is over yet, but I hope I'm wrong about that. We'll find out when he returns from his trip.

My feeling is that the best way to respond to that behavior is to stay away from it or ignore it. I'm just focusing on the articles and the references. He's making his own mess, and that's his choice, but I don't want to be involved with him in any way. --Parsifal _Hello 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't want that you take him seriously, so why don't delete those references to that Ultima thule radio program, it is an hoax, it shouldn't not stay here, do we need to call an Australian embassy? No, right? He's here just to harrass me, everything he wrote was planned a long time ago. That micronation crap must be deleted, everything. I will be back only after that. In the meanwhile, I will edit only something in the Pink Floyd project, and contribute to a different range of topics elsewhere. Doktor Who 20:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the Pink Floyd project would benefit from your edits, you have a lot to offer.

Wikipedia rules about references need to be respected, so I can't remove information that has a valid source. --Parsifal _Hello 20:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No, please forget Pink Floyd, none will take me to that direction. The electronic muisic crap must diasappear from here, everyone must understand that DJs' slang was not invented to be posted in an Encyclopedic context. For the first time, i will make a personal comment against you. I strongly suspect that you all know each other in the "real world" (or maybe are just the same person?). You know very well what I am talking about. That magazine is faked, everything relòated to GC-GP is faked. I'll be back if and only if GP gets banned and everything he wrote is deleted, and every site quoting him is deleted from the web. If that will not happen, that means that you all are just a dozen of bored rich ppl that has come here to harrass me and my "entourage".Doktor Who 21:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Morgellons and delusion

Your cited story [18] says: "Initially, the condition this person described was called delusory parasitosis or delusions of parasites. It was considered a mental problem, and it still is by a large portion of the medical profession.

That's what I'm talking about. I'm not going around saying "you are all mad" to people with Morgellons. I'm saying that most of them have received a diagnosis of DoP, and obviously they disagree with it. I don't know what is causing their symptoms. There are many possible things that could cause them. I personally think, based on the scant evidence presented, that there is no basis for suspecting a new disease. This is hardly an unusual position to take. But when I say that Morgellons is about people trying to persuade their doctors they are not mentally ill, it does not mean I am saying they ARE mentally ill.

I don't think I'll get anywhere here, but I feel you misrepresented my position. I bristle somewhat at this, since it continually happens, and I continually have to defend myself based on something I never implied. I am not accusing anyone of being mentally ill. But ALL media articles on Morgellons (including the one you cited) discuss this aspect, and it is the primary bone of contention between the MRF and the medical community. THAT is what I was talking about. Herd of Swine 21:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I could not misrepresent your position, all I could do is respond to what you wrote and say how I interpreted it. Only you can represent your position.

You say you bristle at this since it continually happens. Maybe it happens often because there is something about the way you communicate that leads people to misunderstand.

If you are really and truly a neutral skeptic as you say you are, then why not remove the word "debunking" from your website, and invite more participation from all sides?

A skeptic is not the same thing as a debunker. A deunker has an idea of what is or isn't so, and sets about to inform people of "the truth". A skeptic simply asks, "what do we know, and how do we know it?".

As I said before, I do believe you mean well and I am not trying to cast you as a bad guy. But there have been things you've written that have brought me pause, and when in particular, the topic turned to addressing Pez as a person, that's when I started speaking up more.

I just want us all to ignore all the COI stuff and address the article content. If COI gets in the way, we can point at it and say "that part is biased." Other than that, let people have their biases, so what? Just don't let the bias into the article. --Parsifal _Hello 22:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was probably mistaken in using the word debunker. I thought at the time that it would be understand as its literal meaning: removing the bunk from a subject. But rather I see a lot of people understand it as a statement of total disbelief in a subject. It's unfortunate.

Actually, after reflecting on it a little, I'm going to remove it, and replace with "discussion". The emotional impact of the word is apparently too great, and seems to polarize opinion. Herd of Swine 22:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

In the process of de-debunking my site, I came across this quote [19]:

Not a day passes when I don’t talk to somebody who claims to have this,” said CDC spokesman Dan Rutz. “In the absence of any objective review, people have jumped to conclusions and found each other on the Internet and formed their own belief structure. We really need to debunk this if there isn’t anything to it or identify if there is indeed a new, unrecognized disease that needs attention.”

Herd of Swine 22:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I want to thank you for considering my comments and choosing to modify your website. I'm sure that's a difficult decision; I believe it's a wise choice. Who knows, it may lead to some unexpected positive results due to the changes in how people perceive your mission.

Regarding the CDC guy using the word debunking - note the way he used it:

• We really need to debunk this if there isn’t anything to it
• or identify if there is indeed a new, unrecognized disease that needs attention

His use shows "debunking" on one side of the question, with "identify" on the other side.

Anyway, whatever the CDC guy said... thanks for responding to my comments in good faith. Best Wishes... --Parsifal _Hello 02:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

music edits

If you give a look at my contributions, you will realize that my interests and knowledge go very far beyond "niche music genres". I wonder if this site is ready to loose me and keep that troll. Doktor Who 23:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Ill no longer talk to you, you and Milo are just two great hypocrite persons; you both had 3 months to prove to the wikipedia community that GP is a hoax and a troll, he violated many times a lot of rules, he referred to you and Milo as "paranoid, shizophrenic, crazy" and so on, but you never reported him. Worste, you take him seriously and quote his lies in an article. i will no longer contribute to music related topics, are you and your friends satisfied now? Of course, you didn't win the war, just this battle. I'll win the war, because I'm a winner, and you all are losers.--Doktor Who 21:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WQA

I can give you diffs. However, the problem arose when Orangemarlin told Macdonald-ross that it might help if he gave edit summaries and used an automated citation system. Fred.e intervened, and lectured Orangemarlin about how he was attacking Macdonald-ross. I saw the discussion on Orangemarlin's page, and I wikilinked Macdonald-ross' name in Fred.e's post. Fred.e appeared on my page to demand that I tell him why. I told him why, and said I was amazed that he was so upset. He claimed I was threatening him and demanded that I apologize. I apologized. And things went downhill from there. You want diffs?--Filll 23:26, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your summary. It's not just about diffs, I didn't mean to be picky about that. In what way did things go downhill from there? It seems like there was a misunderstanding in the past and you apologized. So, what problem is actually happening now? What would you consider to be a good result to resolve this?

The best way to proceed would be to post your summary on the WQA page rather than my talk page, and include the answers to those questions. I'm not sure if it would be me or one of the other volunteers to help with this alert, but someone will help. There are several editors at WQA who are very good at calming tense situations and getting things back into a more productive flow. --Parsifal _Hello 23:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that there is anything to do. I wish it would all go away, and Fred.e would just go away. I apologized a couple of times. I have offered to apologize again. It is up to him if he wants to keep pursuing what I think is a ridiculous set of complaints. It went downhill when Fred.e started erasing posts I made, Orangemarlin, Jim62sch etc from 3rd party pages. Ornis was accused of racism for some reason that I have not been able to discern, but appears to be the result of some paranoia or hallucination. I am not sure. And so on...--Filll 00:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I believe WQA can help with this, but I don't want to do it on my talk page. For one thing, my time is limited and we need the other WQA volunteers to be informed so they can help too. For another, if we continue this here, I know from experience that if the argument continues eventually the whole group of involved editors will be posting here.

So, I don't mind some communication with you here about some of the points, but if you want to continue with the attempt to resolve the dispute, we need to move the conversation to the WQA page.

Here are a few choices -

• just forget about it and maybe it will stop
• I can move this conversation, in a summarized form, to the WQA page and we can continue working on it there
• or, you are welcome to move the conversation to WQA or post your own summary there as you did here.

Any of those are fine with me, and I am willing to help, but I just can't do it using my talk page as the main forum. Please let me know which of the above options you'd prefer to try at this point. Thanks. --Parsifal _Hello 01:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555

Well, of course he has now added you as a sockpuppet of Jmax555 in retaliation of your speaking out against him. How long will the admins allow this sort of bs to go on, I wonder. IPSOS (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it just gets more and more ridiculous. Can he/they really imagine that with his/their edit history(s) he/they could ever successfully tar others with the broad brush he/they are using? IPSOS (talk) 04:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred.e

Parsifal, you might find this diff of interest (assuming it doesn't get reverted from your page): [20] &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:31, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Hmmm... [21] &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 18:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I get your point. My comments at WQA were not intended to say that Fred is an ideal editor. I did mention that his removal of OM's comment was not appropriate. And that goes along with the diffs you showed me here. So he's not perfect and I can see that sometimes his actions might bug you, or the others.

But I felt his WQA report was on track because the reactions of OM and Filll to his comments by using taunts and insults was out of proportion. And your "colorful" language that you say you use often, well, I don't have anything against that kind of writing in general when it's done in good humor. It can be fun at the right time and situation. But in the context of a dispute that's already emotionally charged, that can add fuel to the fire, as you saw in this situation.

My personal impression is that there was some mean-spirited fun going on at Fred's expense, for example what with the sarcastic apology posted in many places and the linking to the holocaust denial.

What's the point of all that? Maybe Fred did something to annoy OM - OK, so what? Why bait Fred with insults to make it worse? What could that possibly lead to that would be good for anyone?

That's why KieferSkunk first responded to the alert by telling everyone to disengage. And he was right; disengaging is where it ended up anyway.

With all that energy used for this argument, what happened to editing articles?

My response at WQA was not intended as a judgement, just a reflection of how it all looked to an outsider. Everyone has their own ways of editing and communicating. When people have different styles, sometimes we have to either build a bridge or if that doesn't work, then just avoid the person.

The best bridge that's the easiest to build is mutual respect. The other most important element is to not take things personally if the other guy says or does something that seems rude; whether he intended to be rude or not, if you ignore it it can fade away. But if you engage and tangle about it, then the damage is done and the bridge is broken. --Parsifal _Hello 21:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Parsifal. FYI The first example cited is one where my concern was repeated by three others on that talk page. Questioning those who feel they are beyond it, is a dangerous business. The second was resolved in 10 minutes, offline. He apologised for it. Despite the continuing hostility displayed to others, and the spineless denial of their incivility, I hope some advantage is gained by the community from this. It is a certainty that I never will, but that is not my motivation. Fred ☻ 21:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I've read your comments above. You seem like a very kind and fair person. I appreciate your getting involved in the article to the extent that you have. Pez1103 13:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need an opinion

Hi Parsifal. I need an opinion about another editor, mainly in regards to possibly filing an RFC/U against them. There's no real Wikiquette or policy violations that I can see with this person, but their behavior still appears to be disrupting WP to some degree.

The user is User:TTN, and the problem I see is that he appears to be unilaterally enforcing WP:FICT/WP:BRD by merging a LARGE number of articles, causing a fair amount of controversy with other editors in the process. There is a large discussion over on CVGProj regarding merging articles about Goomba and Koopa Troopa, and more generally other articles, and as of a few days ago, there was no clear consensus. TTN has come across to me as being very impatient in the discussion, though, and furthermore he has stated on his own Talk page that he intends to keep "pushing and pushing" as long as he knows he's right and there isn't a clear consensus against him.

If you take a look at TTN's talk page, you can see that there's a fairly long history of editors questioning his merging practices. He's also clashed with User:A Link to the Past (who showed up on WQA not too long ago), and there's a lot of evidence to suggest that, good-faith as his merge efforts might be, they're upsetting a lot of people and possibly going against previously established consensus.

Can I get your opinion on whether an RFC/U would be appropriate? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 19:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)