Talk:Randy Raine-Reusch

Interview

Please do not remove the Randy Raine-Reusch interview link, as it is the best interview with this musician available on the Internet, thank you. Badagnani (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are not appropriate here. The article is better off without it. --Tom 19:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the interview link again, which is the best available online. Badagnani (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add the blog entry back. This project can do much better.--Tom 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, please do not remove the interview again, which is the best available online. Badagnani (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, Please do not add the blog entry back. This project can do much better. --Tom 20:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment is illogical and does not seem to show familiarity with the subject. In fact, due to the lack of commentary on the actual content of the interview, it leads one to believe that the editor did not actually read the interview before blanking. Blogs are "generally" frowned upon because most blogs are diaries or ephemeral political commentary. This blog posting, on the other hand, is hosted on a blog website but is not a blog posting at all; it is the text of a valuable interview--so valuable, in fact, that it appears to be the first and only extensive interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please reconsider your repeated blanking and restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

An examination of WP:EL finds that this style guideline states that "links to blogs are normally to be avoided" "...except those written by a recognized authority." In this case, the interviewer is a noted authority on contemporary music, and the interviewee is the actual subject of our WP article--both being authorities in the subject of our WP article. This should solve the confusion, so I ask kindly that you restore the link. Thank you, Badagnani (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Mike Heffley has been accused of plagerism and is NOT a recognized authority on anything. The link is to a selfpublished interview from a blog. --Tom 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What is "plagerism," and how do you know this? Badagnani (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I meant plagiarism, my spelling sucks. I read it in a blog about him. --Tom 21:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Making such accusations could be a violation of WP:BLP and, if written in a blog, may not be accurate if the blog was not written by a "recognized authority." Badagnani (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Since Mike Heffley is not notable and does not have an article, how can this violate BLP? Also, I think you just made my point about blogs and why they should not be used here except in extrodinary circumstances. --Tom 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

blog addition

Badagnani, please stop adding a blog to this article. --Tom 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As stated earlier, blogs are "generally" frowned upon at Wikipedia because most blogs are diaries or ephemeral political commentary. This blog entry, on the other hand, although hosted on a blog website, is not, in fact, a blog posting; it is the text of a valuable interview--so valuable, in fact, that it appears to be the first and only extensive interview of this musician available on the Internet. Your repeated blanking of this interview link is not helpful to our readers, to whom we owe the best possible article about this subject, and appears to represent the editor making a WP:POINT, something that is highly deleterious to our encyclopedia in this case. As per the guideline, editors knowledgeable about a particular subject area may exercise their own best judgement regarding the use of such links. However, acting simply as an "enforcer" who wishes to make a WP:POINT, especially when one has stated that he has little or no familiarity with the subject, is not helpful to our readers. Please restore the link, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 23:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean its not a blog posting? It is posted by a person who has been accused of faking material on his own web site! If this is the only interview on the internet, this Wiki article should probably be deleted per notability. I am not an "enforcer", that is silly, and I am not really trying to make any point. This project can do much better than adding material from a questionable source at best. --Tom 00:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment makes little sense. Many musicians that are notable according to WP guidelines (as this musician is) have no interview available on the Internet, and their WP articles thus would not "be deleted immediately." This very comment shows that the editor is again trying to act as "enforcer" and make a WP:POINT, in a subject in which he has admitted he is not notable, and does not consider sources carefully before blanking content. It further shows that the editor making such pronouncements also has little or no familiarity with our music notability guidelines, to which he refers. I have seen no evidence that the host of the interview did not actually conduct the interview, or that the interviews are "faked"; this is a rather strange claim that has not been bolstered by actual evidence. Finally, the interview is clearly not a "blog posting" per se, as explained twice before just above; as most blog postings consist of musings or ruminations about one's personal life, politics, etc--while this interview is hosted on a blog-type website, it is not a "blog posting" but instead the text of the most valuable interview of this musician available on the Internet. As such, please restore it and refrain from acting as "enforcer" and blanking such valuable links in future. We owe it to our users to provide the best, most comprehensive article about this individual possible, and your editing conduct is severely hampering this aim. Badagnani (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

More BS I see. The link IS to a blog posting, period. Why is that so hard to grasp?--Tom 14:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The use of profanity (for the third time, after being asked not to do so) is not helpful in this case. I see on the editor's talk page that he has been asked to moderate his tone numerous times, yet apparently has not done so. I again ask, respectfully, that the editor cease use of profanity in his discussion postings. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

BS is BS. No biggie. --Tom 18:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Work with Yes

Is there a RS for this? TIA --Tom 19:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I will converse with you if you state you will avoid the continued use of profanity. Badagnani (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Will you dissist with accusing me of being an enforcer, making a point, ect ect? Seriously Badagnani, how can we resolve our differences? Both of us I am sure can use our time better than edit warring with each other. It seems like you have done and continue to do much good contributing to this project, just as I hope you see that I do alot of good editing as well. Maybe we should get another set of eyes to comment about the link you want to add. If consensus is that the link should be included, then I am done, and likewise, I would hope if consensus says not to include the link, it can be done. Anyways, no hard feels either way. Cheers, --Tom 20:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring

Just because 3RR is never formally broken, doesn't mean it isn't an edit war. Would you two like an outside opinion, or are you having too much fun resolving things this way? --barneca (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a terrible situation, I agree. The editor continually removing links appears to act across WP as "enforcer," but the problem is that he is enforcing a personal interpretation of a guideline, and without (by his own admission) actually carefully reading the source material first. In the case of external links, blogs are certainly to be avoided when they are straight opinion postings, personal diary entries, etc.--that is the spirit of the guideline. However, in this case the person maintaining the blog is an authority on the subject at hand (contemporary/cross-cultural improvised music), and the webpage is actually an extensive interview rather than a typical blog posting (political opinion, musing, diary entry, etc.). It simply appears on a "blog"-type website, most likely for economic reasons, as is more and more common--particularly for musicians and writers on music, who often do not have a great deal of money. I'll reiterate that the editor continually removing the link has never addressed the actual content of the link, but has denigrated the interviewer for unknown reasons, even stating that the interview may have been entirely faked (!), and has a pattern of incivility and acting as "enforcer," in tandem with a lack of knowledge of the subjects of the articles from which he blanks text (and nearly always refuses to take into consideration the comments of productive, long-time editors skilled in those subjects. To sum up, I agree that this non-consensus, unilateral, repeated blanking shows a pattern of WP:POINT, and is disruptive. Badagnani (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, might I ask how you, User:Barneca, found this talk page? Badagnani (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

An examination of WP:EL finds that this style guideline states that "links to blogs are normally to be avoided" "...except those written by a recognized authority." In this case, the interviewer is a noted authority on contemporary music (with several published and widely reviewed books, the most famous of which is a study of the life's work of American composer Anthony Braxton), and the interviewee is the actual subject of our WP article--both being authorities in the subject of our WP article. This should solve the confusion, the editor who blanked the link should now restore it, and we can move on to doing things that actually improve Wikipedia for our users (and do not needlessly waste bandwidth). Badagnani (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Badagnani, I found this page while watching Special:RecentChanges. Why? It's not like a 1 week edit war is hard to miss. The problem is not one editor removing links; the problem is two editors talking past each other, and continually reverting at the same time they leave repetitive messages on the talk page, and getting more and more angry and more and more rude with each other. If two editors can't decide on something, that's what WP:DR is for. The first, and easiest, is WP:3O. I've read the talk page, let me look at a policy page or two and I'll offer my own opinion, and you can both decide where you want to go from there. --barneca (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi barneca, thanks for your involvement. I have actually suggested another set of eyes. Also, this "dispute" involves two other articles, possible more. As far as "this really isn't a blog posting" that is sort of silly. Look at the linked page. Its signed and time stamped. Also, I don't find the author of that blog to be noteable, if fact, I found other blog postings suggesting that the author had problems with plagairism and "faking" material, but again, that was on some blog so it isn't reliable, who knows. Also, I believe barneca and myself have been invloved in some editing in the past, (just for discloseure, but I didn't bring him/her here if that is what is being suggested above or questioned) but I would have to look that up. Anyways, the more eyes the better :) Cheers, --Tom 22:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Thanks for everyone's contributions. The author is clearly notable (see [1] for a list of published books, reviews of which may be found by Googling on the books' titles), as is the subject of the interview--so notable, in fact, that he is the actual subject of this WP article. We've now closely examined the actual guideline you've quoted, examined the actual sources, and the backgrounds of the interviewer and interviewee. I hope this solves things. Kindly restore the link, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hi again Tom, I had forgotten about that; we discussed something on Talk:Boston a while ago. It seems there's always some previous history I didn't know about in these kind of things! I suppose the fact that I'm agreeing with Badagnani should take the possibility of underhanded collusion away. Anyway, this got a little out of order, I've already chimed in below. I won't stick my nose any further into a dispute between you two on other articles, unless you both want me to for some reason. But any comments you have on my comments below are welcome. -barneca (talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Although it isn't, IMHO, as clear cut as either of you make it out to be, I'd lean towards including the link, based on the following:

• Not sure if Mike Heffly qualifies as a "recognized authority", but this: [2] makes me think he's at least close;
• There does not appear to be similar material in non-blog format anywhere (i.e. if someone could find an NPR interview or something, even if it isn't as comprehensive, I'd be much less in favor of including this link);
• It's an interview with the subject (i.e. if this was a blog post about Mike Heffley's opinion on the subject, I'd be dead-set against inclusion);
• The blog does not appear to be an advertising magnet/gimmick;
• I've searched, and can find no online reference to accusations that Mike Heffley plagiarized anything; in particular, there's no reason to think this interview is faked;
• I think a long interview adds enough information (which can't be included directly in the article) that it meets the "spirit" of WP:EL, if not the letter.

Please, Badagnani, let's wait until Tom replies to this before re-adding anything; 2 to 1 is not automatically consensus. Waiting and discussing first is the polite thing to do, it's the consensus-generating thing to do, and it's the good karma thing to do. For example, I am very much interested to see if Tom can provide some reference to this plagiarism accusation. In a perfect world, all three of us would end up agreeing before the EL section is changed again.

You both appear to have been here substantially longer than me; it would probably be silly and bad form to start lecturing anyone about civility, AGF, 3RR, DR, etc. Suffice it to say that, FWIW, I'm a little surprised two long-term good-faith editors started edit warring, and I truly believe no one here is blameless, or even close to blameless, for this silliness.--barneca (talk) 22:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Barneca, I will not post the links I found to the author in question because they are from blogs and that is sort of the whole point for why blogs are to be avoided. I am very close to just throwing my hands up and saying Badagnani, do what you will. In fact Badagnani, just add the links back into the articles and I will defer to others. Good luck. Thanks Barneca for settling this and yes, this imho is silly for 2 high edit contributors to be doing. Anyways, cheers! --Tom 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, if you guys are having this same argument on multiple articles (I assume that's what Tom means above), why not write a quick request for other opinions at WT:EL, or WT:MUSIC? Or an article/policy RFC? Like edit warring, that would take some energy, but unlike edit warring, it might result in something productive. For all I know, my IAR approach to this kind of EL is frowned on by 75% of the community. Why not get a wider audience to discuss it? As an aside, I'm starting to litter all my posts with IAR's and EL's and needless wikilinks; does that mean I've "arrived"? --barneca (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I am an idiot and like pain :) Yes, it involves 2 other articles and maybe a few more are starting to pop up. Seriously, your suggestion is very reasonable and makes alot of sense. I might do that in the future. Hopefully this is now over. Regards, --Tom 22:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Randy Raine-Reusch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140323181330/http://amusicosm.com/Footnotes_15.html to http://amusicosm.com/Footnotes_15.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:35, 6 January 2018 (UTC)