Talk:Stryker (disc jockey)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

No more opinions

People are entitled to their opinions, but this is no place for them. There is to be no rumors, no unsourced remarks, and no irrelevant weasle attempts to put libelous material. If you can't back it up, then shut up and don't make edits.

waesle attempts, like not signing your name on the talk page? -- Craigtalbert 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

The line "It is common belief among a number of Loveline fans that Stryker is "worse than AIDS" is opinion (an immature one at that). It's a message you posted on the Loveline Companion then used that as your reference. Stop editing already and grow up GiantRobot 14:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out to editors that the repeated insertion of unsourced or poorly sourced negative information into the biography of a living person is a serious violation of WP:BLP, and is a blockable offence. Editors should remove any such information immediately and with extreme prejudice, and such removals are an exception to the 3RR rule. - Crockspot 21:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
At the very least can there be a part in the article stating how disliked he is or how much contempt there is for him among Loveline fans?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.215.236.242 (talk • contribs)
If it is solidly supported by a reliable secondary source, such as a newspaper article, yes. If it is original research, or is supported by a blog post, which is not a reliable source, then no. I would recommend looking at the following articles carefully before proceeding: WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:OR, WP:NPOV. - Crockspot 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC) Additional comment, I also noticed that you redirected Retarded to this article. That is considered vandalism, AND defamatory. - Crockspot 16:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

DOB

According to IMDB, Stryker was born June 4th 1977 (where as the page says 1972). -- Craigtalbert 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

the June 4, 1972 birthday is present on the Westwood One offical website. Now here's the tricky part: It looks like whoever posted Styker's profile to Westwood One copied this page! Maybe it was even Styker himself, in which case that would confirm the veracity of the information that was copied. --Legitimus 14:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
How can you tell if the westwood one profile was copied here or vice versa? -- Craigtalbert 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I am the original creater of this article, and wrote it in my own words as best I could (I've very green to using and contributing to wikipedia, so I've been learning rules and etiquette as a I go. It's complicated!) Anyhow, the westwood one piece was practically word for word for the version at that time, though it's hard to pinpoint exactly when that was. I was very surprised, since I thought they'd write something more original. I think a careful scrutiny of the edit history will support this. Legitimus 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow

175 signatures... yeah, that probably deserves to be deleted.Jimmycracker 08:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

187 as of right now. There have been several attempts made by CBS and what seems to be CBS sockpuppets to remove all unflattering information from this article. I hope you're not one of them. -- Craigtalbert 18:12, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Uh, sorry. 187 signatures isn't significant enough to be in the article. Anybody can use petitiononline.com to get some issue noticed. An online petition to get Family Guy back on the air received 100,000 signatures, so when your petition gets some *big* attention, put it back up.Jimmycracker 20:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not my petition, and I don't appreciate your criticism of my neutrality. I'm going to protect the article from people who have a financial investment in Stryker. Wikipedia isn't a promotion vehicle for DJs, or for radio programs. Sorry. -- Craigtalbert 22:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? No, I'm not connected to any radio station. I don't know where you got that from. I'm pointing out that 187 signatures isn't NEARLY enough to warrant an entry on wikipedia.Jimmycracker 05:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

191 now. The purpose of the controversy section is to explain the controversy surrounding Stryker being selected as the co-host of Loveline, and the petition is an example that helps illustrate it. It would be relevant, in this context, if it had 2 signatures. Your attempt is only one of many, the previous of which had been identified as edits from CBS, to remove the controversy section -- ruining the integrity of the article. You can kick and scream all you want, but it's still wrong. -- Craigtalbert 08:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It wouldn't be relevant if it had 2 signatures, because 2 signatures ISN'T ENOUGH. Wikipedia guidelines. 191 isn't enough either. If some guy complains about the host on livejournal, should we add that to this article too? I don't care about the host Stryker—I've never even heard him. I'm pointing out that this online petition isn't notable enough, because it's neither big nor popular. Again, I'm not affiliated with CBS, and I'm not trying to defend the host.Jimmycracker 08:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I see you mentioned Wikipedia guidelines, which one(s) are you referencing? -- Craigtalbert 08:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability#Notability_of_online_petitions.3F It's common sense that you don't just put up any link you find on the internet. It has to be notable. Popular in other words—or something that's received *heavy* attention.Jimmycracker 09:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's not a Wikipedia guideline. It's part of a discussion from a talk page about notability, and there's nothing about the number of signatures on the petition. Moreover, the words "popular" and "received heavy" aren't even mentioned in the discussion. -- Craigtalbert 14:38, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

"Maybe if there's media coverage of them" in other words, popularity. significance. You don't know anything about wikipedia, do you? It's an implied guideline, because you CAN'T just put up any shit you see lying around on the internet, even it relates to the topic.Jimmycracker 17:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I still disagree with you and I don't think this is becoming a productive conversation about collaborating on the article. I don't see any guidelines supporting your claims, and I still believe that the petition is relevant. Moreover, since you "don't care about Stryker" it might be best if you left the editing to people who are interested in and knowledgeable about Loveline and the people affiliated with it. -- Craigtalbert 18:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources "Material from bulletin boards and forum sites, Usenet, wikis, blogs and comments associated with blog entries should not be used as sources. " PetitionOnline would fall under a category of bulletin board/forum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Petitiononline.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_8#Online_petitions You'll find that the majority of people here don't view online petitions as notable.Jimmycracker 19:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the similarity between an online petition and a blog. The critcisms in the other sources you mention are from talk pages and are not guidelines. If your cause is to remove all links to petitiononline because you really think that they're having a negative impact on Wikipedia, then I would encourage you to pursue that in the appropriate channels rather than arguing it ad nauseum in respect to this article. -- Craigtalbert 00:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jimmycracker=Stryker. Obviously. Mientkiewicz5508 20:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm?Jimmycracker 21:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Nothing gets past you. Mientkiewicz5508 23:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You're really passionate about this, aren't you? I never said it was similar to a blog, I said it was similar to a bulletin board—which it is. Non-notable people post their opinions online—and unless the petition receives heavy attention, it's not notable. And now that I think about it, it's very very similar to a personal website. In fact it is. This online petition is the equivalent of some stranger making a geocities site condemning the host and getting 100 supportive comments in his guestbook. What exactly is so hard to understand about this? You just can't post anything you find on the internet on wikipedia. If a thousand people on wikipedia said online petitions weren't notable, I assume you'd still be arguing about this? You want to have a vote on this? Everyone in the talk pages I've shown you has expressed their opinion that online petitions aren't notable—for a reason. That's the frikkin' consensus.Jimmycracker 01:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedian and Loveline fan, it does make me angry that CBS affiliates have abused Wikipedia in attempts to improve the image of one of their employee's. Not only is it dishonest, it's also unprofessional. Like I said before, I want to protect the integrity of the article, meaning (in this case) that it reflects the reality of the controversy as accurately as possible. The petition is a good aggregation of some fan's opinions, therefore it's relevant for the Controversy section. Additionally, Per guidelines Wikipedia is not a democracy and polls are evil, I will revert any changes that you make which I think are against the neutrality of the article. If you still disagree with me, I suggest you contact an administrator or request arbitration. As it seems like we're basically repeating things we've both said before, my part in this conversation has ended until new information is brought in and/or you can show better respect for the civility guidelines. -- Craigtalbert 05:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

"some fans' opinions" aren't notable. Especially when its... lesse', 200 people? I'm sure there are 200 people who hate The Beatles, and there may even be a petition to 'boycott all beatles albums' somewhere... do we put that up there? No. You're not considering anything I'm saying. If you want to keep up the forum admin's decision, that's a little bit more notable, and I wouldn't mind—but an online petition is not notable. Here, I'll try to sum up everything I said. See if you can respond to them. 1. There seems to be consensus on wikipedia that online petitions aren't notable. Yet you insist that they are. 2. They fall under the category of forum/bulletin board since they're just random people posting their thoughts. Guidelines specifically prohibit sources from bulletin boards. 3. The CBS issue is a non-issue. I'm not affiliated with CBS, and I'm just following the general consensus on wikipedia. I don't know anything about Stryker, and I don't care about him. Yet that's not a good enough reason for me to stop trying to improve this article. 4. A petition online to bring back family guy received 100,000 signatures. Adding to that, it received media attention and helped bring the show back on the air. This petition has done absolutely nothing and it's only received 200 signatures. Okay, 201. 5. Controversy alone isn't worth posting here. There are a lot of controversies, and unless they're big, you can't post them here. The opinions of a few fans doesn't mean shit. And if there are millions of people who hate Stryker, you have to prove it. If you can't prove that the controversy is big enough, then you can't post it. In the meantime, I put up a comment request.Jimmycracker 06:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your points: I don't think Stryker is comparable to The Beatles or The Family Guy. I see no evidence of a consensus among Wikipedia editors on the topic of citing petitions. If what you're saying is true in your third point than it seems to me you're in violation of WP:POINT, and like I've said before you should attempt to get the guidelines changed and not this article. To respond to your fifth point, generally what people do when they want to show evidence of people's opinion on something is take polls or circulate petitions. Of course, the number of people participating in such polls and petitions will be in proportion the impact of whatever they're about. You attempted to compare Stryker to The Beatles and The Family Guy. A Google search of "The Beatles" returns approximately 15,800,000 results, a Google search of "The Family Guy" returns approximately 702,000 results. A Google search of "Stryker Loveline OR KROQ" returns approximately 15000 results. By this metric Stryker is approximately 47 times less popular than the Family Guy and 1053 times less popular than The Beatles. Citing a petition with 200+ signatures (that has grown by ~15% since this conversation began) for a person of with this level of notability makes sense to me. -- Craigtalbert 03:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, Cracker. The "frikkin consensus" here is that 1.) It is notable. and 2.) You're a moron. and 3.) Your name is obviously Stryker. I don't care what the "frikkin consensus" there says, it's about what's here. Now get over yourself Stryker. I mean Cracker. Mientkiewicz5508 03:39, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, explain how it's different than a geocities site with a guestbook of comments that say, "OMG I HATE STRYKER HE'S A TERRIBLE HOST!!!1221" Can you do that, or are you just gonna keep up this ridiculous argument? And yeah, this is a marvelous consensus. In total, exactly 3 people are participating. Idiot.Jimmycracker 03:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Online petitions

This is a dispute about whether or not online petitions should be used as sources in this article.Jimmycracker 01:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This did not follow the guidelines suggested for RFC's the description of the dispute was not accurate or neutral see WP:RFC for examples. -- Craigtalbert 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Um, yes it did. Care to elaborate?Jimmycracker 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You're post on the RFC page read: "Someone wants to use a petition from petitiononline to show that listeners/fans don't like this radio co-host." (diff) This did not include opinions from all editors involved. You may want to look at this example RFC. I also object to your description of the problem. The RFC also made no mention of the history of edits made by CBS to this article, which attempted to remove much of the same information you are. In fact, if you could give me some reasonable evidence that you're not affiliated with CBS I would drop this all right now. -- Craigtalbert 05:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What? You and I were the only editors involved in this dispute. What other opinions are there? Read the guidelines. The RFC isn't to explain every little detail—it's to make a brief, quick neutral statement that sums up the dispute, and that's exactly what it is. Seriously, I'm not gonna give you *any* evidence that I'm not involved in CBS. I'm sorry to say this, but you're either trolling, or you're completely crazy.Jimmycracker 05:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I think if you take a close look at this example you'll see what I'm talking about. I don't believe saying I'm either a "troll" or "crazy" is in keeping with with WP:CIVIL, and this conversation is still not productive, so I'm not going to continue it. I will still revert changes that I believe are against the integrity of the article. -- 05:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, I looked at the example: This is a dispute about what ingredients are in apple pie. My version: This is a dispute about the use of online petitions. Now you wonder why this conversation isn't productive? First, with no evidence, you accuse me of working for CBS. 2nd, you're ignoring everything I'm saying, then you choose to abstain from the conversation while insisting to keep the petition up. I was probably out of line with the 'crazy' thing, but I'm giving you clear reasons that you conveniently ignore. If you really want to keep this up (and I'm not sure why) I'll just request arbitration.Jimmycracker 05:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Less than 200 signatures is not a lot for an online petition of this type. I don't think it's notable. PubliusFL 19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion

Filling request from WP:3O:
Online petitions can be started by anyone, so their mere existence does not automatically make them notable. WP:WEB is helpful in deciding whether the petition under question here ought to be considered so, especially the "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself" criterion. Based on this, there's no way to justify mentioning the petition at all. And Mientkiewicz5508, please mind WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL.Simões (talk/contribs) 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see anything specific in WP:WEB to petitions. The section with the criteria you've cited in WP:WEB is disputed, and if it was applied systematically to this article all of the citations in it would need to be removed. My understanding of WP:IAP is it would be wise to consider the context in which a citation is used, so I am forced to disagree with you and User:Jimmycracker. -- Craigtalbert 03:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
"Web content includes, but *is not limited to*, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content". Also, typically what gets sourced as web content is popular. The loveline archive is popular; a petition with 200 votes is not by any means popular. What's infobox australian place?Jimmycracker 03:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for indenting, it makes the conversations much easier for me to read. I'm not sure what metric you're using to assess popularity. The pagerank of the petition page is 3. -- Craigtalbert 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
You just cited the Australian Place Infobox template to support your addition of an online petition to the article. I don't follow. Online petitions are "web-specific content." This makes WP:WEB most relevant in seeking notability criteria. Unfortunately, your petition fails to meet the criteria by a mile. Simões (talk/contribs) 03:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, should have been WP:IAR. Additionally, as I'm mentioned before in this discussion it's not my petition. You're failure to notice that and to address the other points I brought up tells me that you did not do your due diligence when assessing this dispute, so I'm reverting your change. -- Craigtalbert 04:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, to respond to your points above... yes, there is a consensus that online petitions aren't worthy sources, unless they receive heavy media attention. I'll show it to you again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_8#Online_petitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_3#Petitiononline.com I have yet to see a single disagreement with this (besides from you). Regarding the Beatles vs family guy vs stryker, you're citing the opinions of 200 listeners of loveline... out of probably millions. 200 is not substantial, at all. And why does it matter if it's not your petition? That's completely irrelevant. Also, the pagerank is 10... not 3. http://www.petitionspot.com/listpetitions/entertainment/10 And even if it was 3 that still wouldn't matter. My 'scale' is based on listeners of loveline, which probably exceeds millions. You're citing 200 opinions. Jimmycracker 04:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't recognize the opinions expressed in two talk pages as consensus. I was citing the Google Pagerank of the petition site, which is one way to measure "popularity" or importance. I'm not sure how large Loveline's audience is, and I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing in terms of popularity. -- Craigtalbert 04:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
What do you define as consensus? Do you want every single person on wikipedia to vote? If someone disagreed, they'd let it be known. And 2 more people have deemed the petition unworthy. Somewhere along the line you have to use common sense—they're all disagreeing you with for a reason. 2nd, Loveline gets about 5 million listeners. 200 people doesn't represent popular opinion if you're considering 5 million listeners. And an opinion has to be popular/important for you to put it on wikipedia. Pagerank doesn't work... it doesn't matter how many people visited the petition. It's how many people have signed the petition. And how are you using google pagerank anyway? Searching for the url gets... one result. Trust me, this does not appear to be a popular petition.Jimmycracker 04:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Please see WP:SENSE. One person said that he thought petitions with less than 200 votes wouldn't qualify, this one has more than 200. The other hadn't adequately reviewed the dispute. User:Mientkiewicz5508 seemed to agree with me. I'm still not following your math about the petition size vs. audience size and how it applies to The Family Guy, but not to Loveline. I won't get in to an argument about the accuracy of Google Pagerank, but you can get it for particular sites from Google Toolbar [1] or from some other third party sites [2] [3]. -- Craigtalbert 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god. What does it have now? 202 opinions? Are you being serious? He wasn't being LITERAL when he said less than 200 votes, as in—"If it's over 200, then it's fine." The other person is following the notability guidelines. Mientkiewicz5508 seems to be a troll, judging by his comments. And again, the petition is not popular. Repeat, it is not popular. If it was, it would get at least more than 1 listing on google.Jimmycracker 05:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I was being literal, because at the time the number of signatures was under 200. I see it's picked up a few. Right now it ranks right below "Don't Add Sora to Super Smash Brothers Brawl." I hope whoever edits Nintendo articles has made note of that important reference. PubliusFL 07:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stryker on Loveline fun

First, I was linked to this off a Loveline forum, so I'm trying to be upfront with my biases. As the article currently stands, I think it's reasonable. Including the petition vs. not included the petition seems debatable to me - There is clearly an undercurrent of old Loveline fans who do not care at all for Stryker, yet I'm not sure if an online petition with ~200 signatures is the best way to accurately prove this. Then again, I'm not sure if there *is* a good way to prove this. Does anyone has access to an Arbitron book that might provide ratings for the show? Is there even a way to accurately chart the popularity of the show, i.e. number of alliates lost / gained with Stryker? It seems unlikey that a mainstream newspaper would do an article about Dr. Drew and Stryker and Loveline; have any of the radio trade mags written anything about the show?

Also, as an attempt to quell a bit of the debate, some of this dispute might be better aired at the Loveline wiki page. Currently, there's almost nothing there about Stryker, so at least some of this banter about Bonaduce and others on Stryker might be nice to have there. SGreenwell 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now Craigtalbert, considering the majority of us believe the petition doesn't quite work in this article, could you please concede? This is getting frustrating.Jimmycracker 06:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

You're putting words into my mouth - I didn't exactly say that I don't believe the petition has no validity. I'm saying I can see both sides of the argument. I think the petition is valid as a one line sentence, something to the effect that says, "Some Loveline fans have been upset with Stryker's position on Loveline," and then a link to the petition. I'd much rather have arbitron ratings and other, more finite proof, but in lieu of that, I think a citation back to the petition is probably the best way to prove that people ARE upset with Stryker's work on Loveline. SGreenwell 23:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, he's supposed to have a huge audience; how can 200 signatures on an on-line petition be remotely significant enough to include? I imagine that there are similar petitions about many many people; we don't mention them in articles because they're unimportant. The insistence on including mention of it seems to be the result of a personal agenda rather than a desire to improve the article. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the criticism of my neutrality. If you follow the history of edits to this article you'll see that the initial attempts to remove it (and other parts of the article) were made from 170.20.96.116 (an IP address known to be associated with CBS) [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and continued with non-anonymous suspiciously sock-puppet looking accounts. So, if anything the facts seem to be the opposite of what you're describing -- that there's a personal/financial interest on the part of CBS to make one of their employees look good. I agree with SGreenwell that if there's was a better way to communicate the sentiment expressed by many of the fans, that it would be preferable. If you can think of one, I'd be interested in discussing it. Additionally, I don't understand your reasoning about the notability of the petition, it seems somewhat subjective and speculative (e.g. "he's supposed to have a huge audience" so the petition can't possibility be significant enough to include?). If you can give me a better explanation, I will reconsider my position. If not, I will revert the changes. You may also want to add your name to the request for mediation [11] -- Craigtalbert 00:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'll try to explain it... again. It's 200 people, out of millions. If millions of people signed this petition it might be important, but we don't include a petition with 200 signatures because, if we did, then we'd have to include *every single* petition on petitiononline with 200 signatures, including things like "GET LINK OUT OF SUPER SMASH BROS. 3!!!" They're all equally important (aka. not important at all). I don't know why you keep ignoring this. And I don't know why you keep mentioning CBS sock puppets—that's not an issue anymore. We're talking about consensus and guidelines.Jimmycracker 01:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have yet to see you provide any information about the size of Loveline's audience, or make an argument as to why the size of the audience would be a kind of counter-argument (e.g. I went to school with a lot of people who hated the school lunches. If I wanted evidence that students didn't like school lunches would I need to get every student in the world to sign a petition, or would a sample be enough?) I have also not seen any guidelines or "consensus" to support your argument. I keep mentioning CBS because they have a history of tampering with this article and I don't put it outside of their reach to find clever ways to continue too. -- Craigtalbert 01:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
The point Jimmycracker was making was that Wikipedia has to be consistent in its application of policy; if ~200 people signing a petition is significant enough to be mentioned in this article, then it must be significant enough for every article. However, if you look at the other stuff with ~200 signatures [12] (or more) it's clear we don't want to add all of them into the relevant articles. There is the other factor which was brought up that how reliable the source needs to be depends on how controversial the claim is (i.e. because everyone seems to agree there is a significant group who don't want him as host, it's OK to use a less reliable source). However there is already indication of the criticism in the article. So I don't see it necessary to use the petition at all; and it probably isn't a good representative on the number of people who disagree with Stryker as host - it probably under-represents the criticism! Please understand that even if some motives were impure to remove a piece of information (i.e. as appears the case with CBS), it doesn't mean that everyone who wants the piece of information removed has impure motives -- please try to follow WP:AGF. RB972 02:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you. I don't think most of the petitions listed at the site you reference belong in wikipedia articles about them, but I also don't think there's clear (or any, that I've seen) guidelines about when they should -- so I'm not sure what guidelines wikipedia needs to be consistent with. I'd say editors should make a judgment call in the articles where it's an issue, and I believe in this article it's relevant -- for reasons I've stated before. Now, that being said, I'm willing to compromise and if the rest of the editors involved can stay rational and mind WP:CIVIL. -- Craigtalbert 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, it's 100,000 listeners—at least it was in 1993. http://www.dolland.net/loveline/cache/house/index.html Unfortunately, 200 out of 100,000 fails to be significant. It's a meaningless sample, and it doesn't prove that a large number of people hate him—and 200 people isn't a large amount. If you can't prove it, you can't put it up on wikipedia. It's tough, but it's a necessary evil. I'll explain it again. If we were to include this petition, we'd have to include every petition on that site, including all the really stupid ones, because they're all equally valid 'samples' (give me a reason why the stryker petition is more valid than "GET LINK OUT OF SUPER SMASH BROS"). Oh, and the consensus is right *HERE*, in this discussion, as well as other discussions in links I've sent to you. Open your eyes. I don't know how many more guidelines I need to give you. Unless the petition receives media attention, or gains lots and lots of hits, you can't put it up here. If the sockpuppets are a problem, then report it the admins. However, none of us have anything to do with them, and you can't use them as an excuse to keep the petiton up. As well, even if they have a personal agenda to remove criticism, you yourself also seem to have a personal agenda to keep the criticism up.Jimmycracker 02:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
In the Super Smash Bros. article they do have a Reaction section, and I wouldn't see an issue with adding a comment that said "some users were against adding Link to the game" and citing the petition as an example. But, I'm probably not the best person to decide that since I don't have any experience with that particular video game, or it's fan community, etc. Aside from that, we're repeating a lot of the same things we said before again, and going around and around is just wasting my time. If you would like to address the points I made previous that were ignored and can continue to mind WP:CIVIL I will discuss them with you. -- Craigtalbert 05:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
What specifically haven't I addressed? If you want to stop "wasting time" I suggest you acknowledge the consensus as well as the guidelines I've given you. Again, the problem with adding a petition about Link is that its only 200 signatures, which represents an incredibly small fraction of people who actually play the game. If it's much more than 200 but you can't prove this, then you simply can't add the petition to the article. Each time I bring these points up, you just ignore them and say you can't continue the discussion because it's getting too repetitive. See a problem here?
"I'd say editors should make a judgment call in the articles where it's an issue, and I believe in this article it's relevant -- for reasons I've stated before."
My judgement call, again, is that its 200 people out of 100,000. You say you don't think the other petitions are valid on wikipedia—what exactly makes them different from the stryker petition in your opinion? Hopefully your judgement call isn't based on a personal dislike for the guy—someone arguing to put up a smash bros. petition on wikipedia could use the exact same arguments as you.
"Now, that being said, I'm willing to compromise and if the rest of the editors involved can stay rational and mind WP:CIVIL." We've been rational and you haven't yet offered a compromise.
I'll quote you on something: "The purpose of the controversy section is to explain the controversy surrounding Stryker being selected as the co-host of Loveline, and the petition is an example that helps illustrate it. It would be relevant, in this context, if it had 2 signatures."
It wouldn't be relevant, because it wouldn't prove anything. There's no hard measurable proof that there's a large group of people who hate Stryker. I'm sure there is a large group who hate him, but it's not provable, therefore you can't put the petition up.
And again, if you want clear guidelines, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/examples#Use_of_electronic_or_online_sources
"Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources." Petitiononline qualifies as a bulletin board.Jimmycracker 06:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but as I read this it's mostly things you said before, and that I've addressed before. I am more convinced now than ever that it's not possible for us to have a productive one-on-one conversation together. Can we agree to put this on hold until we can have the help of the meditation process? -- Craigtalbert 06:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
You haven't responded to the reliable sources _guideline_ I gave you (it's pretty important, because it's a guideline, you know). You haven't acknowledged the consensus here and on other talk pages. You haven't stated why you think the stryker petition is different from the others on petitiononline. I'd prefer if you acknowledged the things I'm attempting to get across to you, instead of avoiding the conversation. I'm repeating things because, no, you haven't addressed them.Jimmycracker 06:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I have responded to your claim that the reliable sources guideline forbids posting petitions, which is not true. I have responded to your claims that there is a consensus in this article and on wikipedia, there isn't in this article and I have seen no evidence that there is on wikipedia. I have stated why I think Stryker's petition is relevant. You were the one who requested meditation, and I think it's a good idea. Why don't you want to use it? -- Craigtalbert 07:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Here, I'll start with one issue at a time. Please follow this: An online petition qualifies as a bulletin board, because it's users posting their opinions on various matters. It works in the exact same way as, for example, a forum thread/poll that asks people if they like Stryker or not. No, you haven't responded to this yet. You keep saying nothing specifically mentions an online petition, and I'm saying that it's the same thing as a bulletin board. This is why the same thing gets discussed over and over again.
There's no reason why we can't work together, just please acknowledge what I'm saying.Jimmycracker 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I acknowledge that you believe petitions are the same as bulletin boards, forums, etc. I still believe the same thing that I believed on January 31st when I initially responded to this said that I don't see the similarities. Now, I'll admit I didn't specifically say bulletin boards on the 31st, I just said "blogs." So if you want me respond specifically to the criticism that forums and bulletin boards are the same as petitions, let me ask you this: If bulletin boards, forums and petitions are all the same then why is that people don't use petitiononline.com to host their forums and bulletin boards? Why doesn't petitiononline.com advertise itself as a forum hosting service? My answer, and why I disagree with you, is because even though there's superficial similarities I don't seem them as being the same thing. Now, if you disagree, then that's a perfect reason why we can't work well together and the mediation that you suggested might be a good idea. -- Craigtalbert 07:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
They're labels. I'm talking about the *idea* behind a message board, not what people call their sites. From wikipedia: An Internet forum is a facility on the World Wide Web for holding discussions and posting user generated content. But in any case, the website calls itself a public forum in the FAQ. Why specifically don't you see them as the same?Jimmycracker 08:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Can you link me to the FAQ that you're referring to? -- Craigtalbert 08:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be too confident because people are agreeing with you Jimmycracker. Calling Craigtalbert an "idiot" and later saying to him "you're either trolling, or you're completely crazy" is not WP:CIVIL. It looks to me that Craigtalbert was a bit on the defensive after the CBS IP attempts to remove the negative information considering he has mentioned it a few times and especially this comment "In fact, if you could give me some reasonable evidence that you're not affiliated with CBS I would drop this all right now." I don't think repeating things that have already been said is helping, so please stop. Don't think that I am taking your side (I can't speak for other editors) because I'm not. Craigtalbert, if you agree that the 200 signatures is not an accurate description of the criticism, do you still want to add it back? I don't know the specific details, but it seems to me the message from the Loveline Archive is a more accurate description and the 200 signatures is misleading. RB972 07:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
That's a shrewd argument. If I could get one of two things I'd be fine: 1) I'd like to know that these changes are motivated in some way by CBS, KROQ, Westwood One, etc. 2) I'd like people to be objective about the "significance" math they're doing about the number of signatures. As far as (1) goes, I know it's not in keeping with a strict kind of interpretation of WP:AGF, but it does irk me that they could potentially get away with it. Either way, I'd be willing to let it go if we could be more objective about what would make the petition significant. It seems like people are throwing around a lot of numbers (e.g. the size of the loveline audience in 1993, the number of signatures on the family guy petition, etc) and I'm not really sure what formula they're advocating for significance other than that whatever it is it definitely means that the petition is not significant and that it could never possibly be. To me, that just seems unreasonable. If we could agree that it would be significant when it reached it's goal (1000 -- considering that it's grown 25% since this discussion started, that doesn't seem impossible), I think something like that would be a reasonable compromise. Either way, thank you for stepping in and being a voice of reason, I do appreciate it. -- Craigtalbert 08:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Concerning 1) Well, I can't think of any proof if you don't accept people's claim they aren't. However, I don't think a person's motivation is important in this case. If a change benefits the accuracy of the article, then it does; if it doesn't, then it doesn't -- this is true regardless of the motivations of those who are making those changes.
Concerning 2) The concept within Wikipedia you are referring to is notability. There is a guideline although that mostly refers to notability of whole articles. It's not measured by a number; for instant Westboro Baptist Church has a page even though they only have about 100-150 members. However they are notable because their "God hates fags" website has an *effect*, and people report about it or experts notice it. From the Notability guideline (of course, this is mainly for notability of entire articles, but I think this applies here as well):
General notability is not judged by Wikipedia editors directly. The inclusion of topics on Wikipedia is a reflection of whether those topics have been included in reliable published works. Other authors, scholars, or journalists have decided whether to give attention to a topic, and in their expertise have researched and checked the information about it. Thus, the primary notability criterion is a way to determine whether "the world" has judged a topic to be notable. This is unrelated to whether a Wikipedia editor personally finds the subject remarkable or worthy.
Is that an acceptable objective reason for notability for you? It's the *effect*, not the number, that makes something notable if it has been recorded by a reliable source. Hence why Loveline Archive stopping hosting shows is notable but a number of those who don't like him (and a number which is probably barely accurate too) isn't. (Although saying 5000 people stopped listening would be OK, if it could be sourced.) RB972 10:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I suppose I'll pick up the fight a bit then =D I think my main issue with this issue, as someone who maintains the Loveline page a bit, is the outright dismissal of an online petition just because it is an online petition. I don't think it's an outlandish statement to suggest that Stryker does not appeal to all of the old Loveline audience. However, how do we go about proving this? As I've said, I haven't seen any ratings floating around, and Dr. Drew and Carolla once mentioned that it's almost impossible to measure ratings for Loveline because of its national syndication format. Deciding that a simple statement on the front page of the Loveline Archive is more or less reputable than a simple statement from the online petition or the Loveline Companion message board seems odd to me. I think all can be cited to support the general statement, "Some people do not like Stryker on Loveline," without the world ending. SGreenwell 08:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
How is this different to "However, not all Loveline fans feel that Stryker was a good choice to replace Carolla" that is already in the article and is unchallenged? RB972 08:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I still agree with WP:IAR (that "If a citation does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources, it does not necessarily mean it's unusable.") and in this context the the petition can be a useful citation. However, I also have a life (or, I want to resume it at least) outside of this "debate." So, I give up. I won't cite the petition on the page. Good on you RB972 and Jimmycracker :) -- Craigtalbert 11:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

requested mediation

Okay, Craigt... check your user page.Jimmycracker 07:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)