User talk:Riddleben

Pink Floyd
Please let me know if I can be of help removing some of the crackpottery in that, and related articles. Joefromrandb (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Joefromrandb, Riddleben: I have been watching that Pink Floyd for a long time and really feel GabeMC's presence on their has become quite unfair to other editors, too subjective, etc. I have edited here before but it's been a long time because I keep seeing things like this. That someone is getting away with editing a page like this without little intervention and monitoring for editorial objectivity and fairness concerns me. In any case, I'd be curious to hear back from either of you on whether there's any way to take this to some sort of arbitration. Thoughts?--Ikeepwatching (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ikeepwatching - sorry, just read these messages. I have added my comment onto the talk page. Let me know what you think!Riddleben

Riddleben, for the record, I replied to you on the Talk Page in the Floyd article and the comment was deleted. Friginator deleted it and left a comment on my page. This is what I responded with on HIS/HER page:


 * "Friginator, you left the following message on my page:


 * "Hello, I'm Friginator. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Pink Floyd that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)"


 * "A hat-tip for reaching out; are you sincerely willing to collaborate? If so, you might realize I can be a fairly constructive and polite chap. If you are sincere in your outreach, then I definitely want to have a dialog. My main concern with the Floyd article is not my comment. Here it is again because I think the comment and the points I raise after it deserve some discussion - in fact, I am so not looking for a silly debate but to set something straight. I would welcome dialog here or off Wikipedia - whatever you think is best:


 * "Riddleben, this page is beyond collaboration. Legally, the band still exists: David Gilmour's view is just one band member's view. Nick Mason would still like the band to carry on - but either way there has been NO statement that the band has dissolved, only Gilmour stating he's not inclined to do anything else. This is not terribly different from what Waters said when he left the band and stated Floyd was over. '87 and '94 prove differently. Of course, these details don't matter unless they are going to be used to boost GabeMC's opinion - as is the case with the issue regarding Wright's contract: she is quick to point that out and use that as a resource but the reason that is "legitimate" and the resources others have presented over several months to dispute points she has asserted are automatically knocked as not having legitimacy is because, well, they don't support HER views (and Riddleben, you are correct about Wright). It's that simple. Responsible editing would present BOTH views... but this page is pretty much "Pink Floyd history according to GabeMC." I'm fine with GabeMC contributing here - but the proprietary air and lack of objectivity is obscene (not to mention her snarky attitude toward anyone who disagrees with her - some sort of latte-sipping, pseudo-intellectual arrogance that is beyond explication). The chickens will come home to roost - if you look at this page's talk history you can glean how GabeMC has pretty much taken over this to present things as she sees fit - having bamboozled a couple of editors that are a bit overwhelmed with her "accomplishments," the modus operandi is usually the same when it comes to anyone presenting ANY other view other than hers: "you're a sockpuppet," " my resource is good but yours isn't," etc. Really, folks, lighten up. If you want to make an impressive article, focus on presenting the facts rather than running a Jim Jones-styled editing cult. All it takes is presenting BOTH sides, you need not take one or the other."


 * "I am bold in what I state but I am responding with the same attitude many new users - and even other experienced editors - have received at the hands of GabeMC and her supporters. I have not seen an editor acting as a fair arbitrator when disagreements arise between her and others. There is a cultish approach to this article and I am asking that in the spirit of your desire to collaborate you consider other points of view. I'm willing to be collaborative: I hope you are willing to truly have an honest dialog here about the Pink Floyd article and to be collaborative yourself. But collaboration requires objectivity: you have to temporarily divorce from any support you lend GabeMC and look at this objectively: bear in mind - I have NOT edited the article, so I have no skin in this - I am just pointing out something I sincerely feel is wrong.


 * "If you read GabeMC's and her supporters' comments - they are snarky, condescending, and terse, e.g.,


 * ''"But, would it be objective to include information about difference of opinion on this point of whether the band still exists and explaining how some feel Barbican featured Pink Floyd and not merely its last "official" members? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B101:DBB4:B1F7:23B2:4309:240 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * "No. Joefromrandb (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)"''


 * "Anything but collaborative. It is also consistent, in the time I've been watching this page, that resources that support her views are always legitimatized by her and her supporters - but those that don't support her views are not (BBC is not legitimate? Seriously?). This is far too subjective and should at least compel a more professional editor to show both sides of a point of view, e.g., (roughly) "the existence of the band is disputed: these resources show that Gilmour believes this is over. Waters believed the same after he left the band. But these resources suggest they still exist as a legal entity and that at least one of band member believes the band can carry on. No resources prove that the band has ever been officially dissolved." That's it. Full stop. Either way, there is something that is blatantly absurd when absolutely NO ONE is allowed to disagree with GabeMC... I mean, it's getting quite weird.


 * "If you look at the article's history, it is factual, and undeniable, that GabeMC has dominated the editing: she started in February of 2010 as anyone else who would contribute to this - but since about August 2012 the page has basically become property of GabeMC and a few editors that support her - anyone that disagrees is systematically shut out. That would be OK except if you really want to nurture a collaborative spirit you must recognize that she doesn't take kindly to disagreement - read her responses. I'll pluck one example out of many: see her interactions with Mlpearc, (exchanges with Burbridge, Christo Jones, sabrebd seem quite civil though the debate about whether the band officially disbanded was already in full steam again - see interactions with Henry McClean).


 * "Main issue here is a number of points have been raised, with reasonable sources, to support competing points of view. I think they should both be presented, e.g., Klose as a member of Tea vs Floyd, whether the band is officially disbanded, etc.


 * "One concern I have is that this might be being reduced to a Waters vs. Gilmour thing. A Wikipedia article should transcend that. GabeMC's partiality to Waters is not exactly a secret (see http://blogs.smh.com.au/noisepollution/archives/2009/08/lip_syncing_live.html?page=fullpage#comments, for example).


 * "I am fine with people who are passionate about Barrett, or Waters, or Gilmour - and I actually see some great resources to back things she believes. But this shouldn't diminish editors from presenting facts that might challenge those views - there is no harm in (in fact, Wikipedia begs for) presenting the competing viewpoints in the article.


 * "The bottom line from my point of view is:


 * "- Good editors should be concerned when one editor is dominating and showing a sense of proprietorship in any given article.


 * "- Good editors should be concerned when the responses become terse, rude, short, arrogant: if you look at the Riddleben dialog, he/she presented their view with great humility... but GabeMC's response each time was increasingly defensive and snarky - there are other examples of this.


 * "- When there are two viewpoints that are reasonably supported by resources (again, BBC?) then good editors should be collaborative by saying "you know, we do need to present this as point of view in the article." This is not unlike someone going into the Queensryche, Great White, or LA Guns pages (despite the different rock genre) and saying: "well, I don't agree that this version of the band is legitimate so we won't include that in the article." A narrative should discuss why some people view one thread as the legitimate truth while others see another in the same light. In the Floyd case, there HAS to be at least a statement that says: "the band has never officially disbanded."


 * "These are generic elements of good collaboration, not just the Floyd article.


 * "At the end of the day, if GabeMC approached this with a bit more humility, I think people wouldn't feel the way they do about her. Problem is that there's a growing number of people out there that feel that the treatment other editors are getting is abusive - and not all that civil to begin with.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)"

I want to be on record with this. I think we can collaborate here and am all for it - but the editing on that article is getting out of hand and lopsided toward one point of view.--Ikeepwatching (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 14:33, 20 September 2013 (UTC)