User talk:CCS81/Archive 2

Insight
Ha! Talk about schadenfreude... Popcornduff (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I still plan to post an RfC, which feels only fair, but please share your thoughts on that. CCS81 (talk) 16:32, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's noble of you. I guess it's easy (not to mention selfish) of me to say this, but I'm not sure what the point of it is now. The opponent of our proposed changes is no longer using Wikipedia, so what problem would an RfC be solving at this point? Nonetheless if you want to go ahead with it, please do by all means. Popcornduff (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, it just seems like the fair (and high-ground) thing to do is follow up on my proposal. Additionally, there was talk on the talk page from a few years back about doing an RfC in the interest of getting the article back up to GA status, so it would be in the service of that as well.  If you approve, I think I will still go ahead and do it for these reasons.  Best, CCS81 (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've no objection. Go right ahead. Popcornduff (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, cool, thanks for the input, and keep up the good work. CCS81 (talk) 22:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

"Credits"
Please name Credits sections on album pages to "Personnel". This is per WP:MOSALBUM, the album style guide. thanks --Jennica ✿ / talk 19:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Noted, thanks. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of In the Fishtank 1


The article In the Fishtank 1 has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No charting or reviews"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jennica ✿ / talk 05:01, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Yes, I'm fine with the CheckUser investigation proceeding. Orthacanthus (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of The Nothing Show for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Nothing Show is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/The Nothing Show until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Steely Dan
Hello; sorry to get back to you on this so late. By definition, Steely Dan is Walter Becker and Donald Fagen. After Becker's death, Steely Dan ceased to exist. To his credit Donald Fagen originally wanted to retire the name, but he was convinced by promoters for the only reason promoters care about such things: money. They knew, as probably does Fagen, that the Steely Dan brand is more of a draw and will sell more tickets at higher prices than the Fagen name alone is able. Fagen can tour all he wants with a band that calls itself Steely Dan, but in reality Steely Dan died with Becker, and an encyclopedia has to be about reality, not about reality as dictated by concert promoters looking to make a buck. PJtP (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You are using terms like "definition," "existence," and "reality" in irresponsible ways. If you can establish that this "definition" of yours holds with reference to reliable sources that show with certainty that Steely Dan has "ceased to exist" despite continuing to tour under this name, then you would have a point and we could change the article accordingly to reflect "reality."  But these claims of yours do not map on to "reality."  The "reality" is that the band is actively touring, hence "exists," and the necessary conditions of Becker and Fagen's membership for which you advocate do not in fact hold by "definition."  So please stop making assertions about the makeup of reality that you are not prepared to support without the use of reliable sources.  CCS81 (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oh really? OK - 1) The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Rock New York: Harmony Books 1977, LCCN 76 40219, p. 220: "...Steely Dan is and always has been the progeny of songwriter/players Becker and Fagen..." 2) The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll New York: Random House 1980, ISBN 0-394-51322-3, p. 401: "...Steely Dan currently refers to bassist Walter Becker, singer-keyboardist Donald Fagen, and whatever musicians they care to invite to the studio..." 3) Can't Buy A Thrill 1998 reissue, MCA Records MCAD 11886 liner notes penned by Fagen and Becker themselves: "The original members of the band were Donald Fagen and Walter Becker." I could retrieve more, but in four decades of reading about the band or hearing others speak about the band, it was a given that Steely Dan is by definition the partnership of Becker and Fagen. If one goes, no partnership, and no Steely Dan. I was under the impression this was common knowledge and did not need to be proven or referenced every time. If you insert the ideal gas law into an article, do you have to prove that it exists every time? I think the real question here is whether or not the surviving member of this partnership can call himself and touring (or recording) musicians Steely Dan. Perhaps from a business (ie aforementioned promoters) or legal perspective Fagen may, but is that good enough for Wikipedia? I believe an encyclopedia has to concern itself with some measure of reality beyond that of interests driven strictly by commerce; otherwise, it diminishes its usefulness to a commensurate measure. PJtP (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2019 (UTC)


 * You've cited four sources written before Becker's death. What you need to show is that Steely Dan "no longer exists" despite the fact that they themselves claim still to "exist," not the undisputed fact that Becker was in every lineup prior to his death.
 * Let me help and formulate your argument for you:
 * Premise 1: Steely Dan necessarily is only if Becker and Fagen are
 * Premise 2: Becker is not
 * Conclusion: Steely Dan is not
 * Formally this argument is fine, but the problem is this. In your argument Premise 1 is false.  Prior to Becker's death, all Steely Dan lineups included Becker, as your four cited sources show.  After Becker's death, there is now a Steely Dan lineup without Becker.  The lineup from September 2017 to present is a counterexample to your Premise 1, and therefore your Premise 1 is false given this falsifying instance.  In short, you are making "existence" claims on the basis of what was previously true but is no longer true, and apparently on what you want to be true but is not in fact true regarding "existence" and "reality."  And please listen when I say that I hate commerce-driven artistic decisions as much as you seem to, but hate it as much as we may, it simply doesn't matter. Commerce drives what "exists" in the "reality" of the music business, and even if we hate it that there is a lineup of Steely Dan without Becker, the "existence" of the matter is not something we get to decide on the basis of "definitions" that we assert simply on the basis of what we want to be true.
 * In short, the "facts" are as follows. There is a lineup of Steely Dan without Becker. Steely Dan still "exists."  Your "by definition" argument has a false premise. That is the end of the story.  CCS81 (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Happy wikibirthday!

 * Thanks! In wikiyears I guess I'm a teenager now.  Hopefully this puberty experience will be less awkward than my last one.  CCS81 (talk) 06:36, 29 September 2019 (UTC)