User talk:Daysa

Pharrell Williams

Hey Sean, can we put Pharrell Williams at the top of our priority list? I've now reverted three edits adding him to either the Famous Synesthetes section, or the last one, in the See Also section. I've been careful to explain that we are working on this, but I'd hate to get into an edit-war about it. Edhubbard 11:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, the problem with Pharrell Williams is the question of whether his statement alone, in that one interview, should be deemed sufficient to declare that he has synesthesia. The thing is, we want solid material that we can refer people to. While this interview clip does exist, and stands better than a private interview or such, I don’t think that it, in itself, is sufficient. I mean, it sounds very good, and like Pharrell is very possibly a synesthete, or at least a fair bet. But I just feel we need something more solid. Granted that there are others who have been put on the list with just about as scant of information or support, but at least, with those, there are hard-copy references which have been considered by more than just a few experts and which others may be referred to for continued debate.

The problem, as you are aware, is that there are some people – or at least one or two solid fans – who keep wanting to see Pharrell’s name in the list.

Now, what I would like to do would be to interview Pharrell and, somehow, lead him to producing something more solid which could be referenced. However, as you might guess, getting hold of Pharrell Williams in nigh impossible. Still, I will pursue the matter a ways further and see what might be done.

Meanwhile, although I saw your initial response re Pharrell Williams before, I am curious as to what your stance might be now. Do you think the video clip previous provided via the link is sufficient to use as citable reference? I guess I just want something more; including something more solid straight from Pharrell Williams himself.

Incidentally, I'm quite okay with keeping Pharrell on the "being reviewed" list. --Sean A. Day 18:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sean, I'm in 100% agreement with you. I think that you're exactly right, both that the quote is suggestive, and that it, in and of itself, it doesn't quite reach threshold. I agree that the ABC clip, by itself, is citable as definitive. If we have some other corroborating source (is there a Pharrell Williams fan page we can search through?) then the ABC quote is nice because it is publicly available.

So far, we have had just a couple of people (always IPs, instead of named users) and they seem to not persist when I revert. I think it's good that we have a documented conversation on this, so that people know that this is something we are working on, and that we have a procedure in place for looking into new additions. However, in the event that we get someeone that persists, we will want to be prepared to both argue for our procedure, and to say that we are doing everything we can to make some progress on this. It sounds like you are doing everything that any reasonable Pharrell Williams fan could ask.

On a related note, one thing that I was thinking about the other day, is, for new suggestions, what constitutes famous? For someone to be a "famous synesthete" we need to be able to agree that they are both famous and a synesthete. One suggestion that seems reasonable to me is that we consider anyone who has a wikipedia entry famous enough for our wikipedia list. What do you think? (ps: I'll copy this to your talk page, too) Edhubbard 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see User talk:Edhubbard#Pharrell Williams ~ Bungalowbill 04:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sean. Just been looking over this Pharell Williams and Rollo Armstrong thing. I still feel like only one citation is a little weak, but in the end, perhaps we should move them up. User:Bungalowbill has clearly made a good faith effort to find second, corroborating sources for both of them. He's also right that it might be hard to get additional confirmation. I think that he's wrong about the utility of an interview with one of us, as it could be quoted directly, and would be available in paper copy, etc for verification, but this doesn't change the essential validity of his point. We're going to have a hard time getting additional confirmation. So, I say we put the two of them up, and then add a note saying that we would like additional quotes to corroborate this, so if anyone has any, please add them to the talk page. What do you think? Edhubbard 20:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archive syn talk page?

Hey Sean, one other thing... now that the syn page is starting to get cleaned up, and so on, should we archive the old talk page, and if so how? I've added more info on the syn talk page. Share your thoughts with all the editors there Edhubbard 20:55, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]