User talk:Parrot of Doom: Difference between revisions

Some basic rules. One, anyone coming here accusing me of WP:OWN will be told in no uncertain terms where to shove it. Two, anyone whinging about WP:CIVIL will be referred to the previous answer. Three, anyone coming here with a genuine request for help will of course be afforded all the help I can give. Four, never again will I venture onto ANI or any similar admin-related pages, either to resolve an issue, or to respond to somebody else's issue; I'm here to write articles, nothing else. Five, I apologise to those who've supported me in the past, but good-faith content editors can only put up with so much nonsense before they begin to question what good, if any, they're doing here. One day, I'm sure, all that's left here will be a clique of admins and a claque of their sycophants; the rest of the world will have moved on, hopefully to projects where people's contributions are valued, and not decried.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Would you mind participating in the discussion on the article's talk page for The Wall as opposed to making a change uncommented? There is a good case there for what you erased. I am undoing your reversion. Please discuss this. Teach me something if necessary, or hear my case. Do the respect of listening and acknowledgeing before deleting. Dcs002 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have also removed MANY personnel from the personnel section. These personnel have sources other than the album cover that you consider authoratative. The earliest LPs included additional credits that later LPs did not - even by your own standards, you had removed musicians who were credited on the LP. PLEASE talk this stuff over and don't just cut out content based on your opinions without saying a word on the talk page. I had requested comments for my additions, not a hacking away of the content. Please remember this is a cooperative effort! Dcs002 (talk) 13:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware I was required to discuss changes on the article's talk page before making them. But before you start complaining about cooperation, perhaps you should consider who exactly has written most of the content in the Floyd album articles. The rationale is rather simple - keep the credits list as it appears on the album sleeve. If that's good enough for Pink Floyd, it should be good enough here, too. Otherwise you end up with a list that contains every man and his dog, with little to no regard to notability.

As for your edits, you have restored a long list of uncited information, as well as the usual nonsense about "Art rock" and "Rock opera", cruft that is entirely unnecessary. I have therefore reverted your changes. Parrot of Doom 15:39, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot, I do not wish to edit war, but I would like to follow the WP tradition of WP:BRD. The problems are: 1) Right now I don't know if my earlier edit was the bold edit or your reversions were the bold edit. 2) In either case, we need to discuss these issues in the article's talk space, not in the relative privacy of your user space.

• I attempted to restore to an earlier version. The genre debates are something I don't care about - they just came along with the earlier reversion. (They are inherently indefensible because "genre" itself is undefined. That's a recurrent debate elsewhere in WP.)

• As for credits, you had erased credits that appeared on the original album sleeve. Do you have an original printing of the LP? I do, and your edits go farther than your own justification.

• There is nothing anywhere that I can find that says we should limit personnel to those listed on the album sleeve. I have never seen that used as a limiting criterion anywhere. Which WP policy is that coming from? If it is not policy based, then it is not for you to decide and rationalize unilaterally. WP is consensus-driven. Can you point to a germane consensus? WP:Albums might be a good place to start.

• Did you read my justification for the packaging edit on the talk page? Did you just ignore the talk page altogether? I ASKED for comments on that very addition. You did not comment. You just deleted.

Let's get back to the article's talk page and open this up for consensus building. This is not for us to decide here. I am reverting again, and I want to have a discussion justifying any further edits on your part discussed on the article's talk page. (I have justified all of mine.) Once our justification is laid out we can discuss this rationally, inviting comment from interested parties. If that doesn't happen I will be asking for help. This is not your article or mine to customize as we see fit. Please let's do this according to policy, guidelines, consensus, and WP's BRD tradition, not unilaterally. Dcs002 (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have used credits that appear on the sleeves I own, one a fairly old copy, the other an MFSL gold pressing. I'm unaware of older sleeves with different artwork, however a search of the internet indicates that the Harvest Records 1st issue has some credits currently not in the article. I will add those now. I will not, however, add the 54 thousand other credits you seek to restore, because it's nonsense to list each and every individual who had something to do with this album. It's easier just to copy the format established by Pink Floyd on their album covers. That view isn't policy-based, rather, it's common sense; an encyclopaedia isn't a list of everything and anything that anyone deems important.

I have just read your post on the article's talk page. If it appears in a reliable source, let's mention it. If it doesn't then it most likely isn't notable.

And tread very carefully when you start throwing "own" around, because if you're not, you'll find yourself added to the pile of people who've done it in the past, otherwise labelled "people to ignore". Parrot of Doom 20:19, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is subjective and not encyclopedic. I think you know that's not how WP works. Let's talk about this where others can throw in their two cents. I don't want to add 54 thousand credits. I want to have a say, like everybody else, and not be restricted by the will of one person and his idea of common sense. I don't know what is meant by your admonition that I should tread very carefully, but whatever throwing "own" around is, I would appreciate it if you report me for it rather than making unilateral edits and refusing to talk it over where we can look for consensus. Working together is all I want. That's not asking much is it? It's just how WP works. Dcs002 (talk) 09:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know full well how Wikipedia works, which is why I no longer "report" anyone for anything. Parrot of Doom 23:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then please, tell me why you won't discuss these matters on the article's talk page? You know WP works by consensus, but developing consensus is impossible when only the two of us discuss this in relative privacy. I don't understand your thinking on that matter, and I very much would like to.

I am content to leave the credits as they stand, with the full list from the album covers (not worth arguing over), and I will look for a RS for the paper insert issue, but I think that you removed too much from that section (Packaging) as well. You removed the request for clarification tag and reverted the clarifications I had posted. You did not clarify the issue yourself either. (When I first read that paragraph I had difficulty with that sentence, and I'm an educated guy.) You removed reference to the plain cover with only the sticker (and insert). Right now that section is less about packaging for The Wall than it is about Storm and Hipgnosis and PF's other covers. The section is tiny in comparison to others in the article. I think there is a good case for restoring it to at least the point before I added the bit about the insert, clarifying what I agree needed clarification.

If you are only willing to discuss these issues here, would you prefer it if we invite others here to join our discussion? I guess we could work here to build consensus, though I don't understand why we should. I wish you would shed some light on this. Dcs002 (talk) 00:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. While you may enjoy talking (308 talk page edits vs 554 article edits), I prefer to edit. I recommend others do the same. Parrot of Doom 09:01, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you don't recommend that others do the same! You don't want me to make edits to the article unless you think they fit your idea of common sense (which I cannot predict). I am sorry you don't want to join the community in the common areas designated to talk these things through. This can only lead to unresolved disputes and hard feelings in the long run. If you don't participate, the only way people have of reaching you is by 3rd party intervention. I think that's a sad choice. If you really prefer it that way, I will just make edits as I see fit and not talk to you about them anymore. I thought I was going the extra mile by reaching out to you here, but I seem to have annoyed you. I'm sorry. Dcs002 (talk) 09:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea of participation is to join with the hundreds of others here who'd rather engage in long, boring conversations about where a particular word should or should not go. I've been there, got the t-shirt and have since thrown it away, swearing never to go back.

Now I've already answered your questions about the article, but you've obviously forgotten about that. So I'll thank you to stop filling up my talk page with this pointless argument. Parrot of Doom 13:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell what's going on here. GrahamColm's perfectly reasonable argument about the wording (how it's too strong an interpretation, etc.) appears to be completely skipped over by a few editors who I think don't really know what they're doing. Your article edit, BTW, was again reverted, and I restored with explicit reference to Colm's argument. This is really quite amazing. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you reverted with the logic that the citation didn't meet FA standards. Guess what? FA isn't a binding policy on articles-- they can lose FA status, and they can regain it. If you don't like the content added, go ahead and improve it, but cut it the fuck out with the wholesale reversions under bullshit deceptive edit summaries. Your behavior does not evince collaboration but battleground mentality and article-ownership; and as an admin, you should really know better. betafive 05:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]