User talk:RadicalOne/January 2010

KEEN 7 AND 8

Can you actually buy Keen 7 and 8? Please respond. Bob.--75.4.134.115 (talk) 20:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to Commander Keen, the game? I was not even aware there was 7 or 8. I thought the company was defunct... -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm talking about the Commander Keen mods. Can someone buy them? Bob.--75.4.134.115 (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Commander Keen mods? What? I am not aware of any...unless you are talking about the level designer "iKeen", which is free.

For the record, do not create a new section every time you respond; reply within the original section, below the relevant posts. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 21:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "X Vandals a Day" userbox, and the code for it

I worked a bit in my sandbox and tried testing variables in userboxes. Your under-construction userbox has a {{{N}}} in it. In order to get the variable to work properly, replace the N with a 1, making a {{{1}}} in the code. Then, to use the userbox, you'd put {{User:RadicalOne/UBX Design/XVandalsPerDay|N}}, replacing N with the proper number. Aurora Illumina 02:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid I tried that and it does not work. The text now reads "This user catches an average of {{{1}}} vandals per day." (I didn't even need a "<nowiki>" for that, which shows how non-coding it is.) -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Even after replacing the N with something else? The text should say that only if you didn't insert a variable, and will also look like that, with the {{{1}}}, on the userbox page by itself. It's only when you actually use it on another page with the form {{name of userbox|variable}} , then it should work. Aurora Illumina 02:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh. -RadicalOne---Contact Me

02:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your phrase? "Eureka"! It works. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Earth

You seem to have misunderstood my suggestion on Talk:Earth. The suggestion was to put a notice on the talk page discouraging young Earth creationists from trying to inject their pseudoscience into the article, as can be seen in the "POV" section and several of the archives. My suggestion does not affect the actual article. --Evice (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have misunderstood you, though not in that regard. See the relevant page. -RadicalOne---Contact Me 01:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that my edit summary was unduly harsh. I tend to not like blanket warnings on talk pages because I rather delete off-topic discussions than discourage on-topic ones. The main thing is I very highly doubt that message will stop anyone that wants to complain about the facts in this article, that's why I called it useless. But if you think it'll help, then okay. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I understand. As I believe the phrase is, "no harm done". -RadicalOne---Contact Me 02:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Movie Music UK

Would you mind showing me the discussion where my review site was not deemed important enough? If a film music review website with almost 2,000 reviews, over 200 composer biographies, a thriving discussion forum, and over 1 million hits is not considered important, then none of them are. My site has been around for 10+ years and provides content identical to Filmtracks, Movie Wave, FMR, and Film Music on the Web, all of which are linked from the film score article (despite FMOTW having been defunct for over 4 years), and seem to be uncontroversial. I'm not sure where the WP:NPOV element comes into play either - I make no comment as to its content other than to acknowledge that the site exists (which it clearly does). I'd really appreciate some clarification as to the thought process which went into this. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Not "not important enough". Not neutral. That is by virtue of visible bias against certain composers and studios, as evidenced by some rather telling comments. For example, on one composer's page: "[composer]'s career, in my opinion, has been one which promised much but delivered little." And there are plenty more where that came from. Such comments cast a great deal of doubt on the claim of neutrality.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:38, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's not neutral. How is it possible for a review website to be NPOV? A review, by its very definition, is POV because it reflects the opinion of the author. And, besides, the NPOV only applies to the content of Wiki itself, not to the content of external sites. A pro-Republican website is in no way NPOV because it takes an anti-liberal stance. Does than mean that all pro-Republican website links from politics pages must be removed from Wiki because they are biased against Democrats? The same for atheism. Would you argue that all atheist website links from religion pages must be removed from Wiki because they are biased against Christianity? Filmtracks has an anti-Hans Zimmer bias. NPOV. Movie Wave has a pro-Ennio Morricone bias. NPOV. I really, really, don't understand your logic. And, again, please show me the discussion thread where this conversation took place. --JonBroxton (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right. However, the spin you put in your page is such that it is a violation of WP:BLP. Expressing an opinion is fine. Slandering a studio and its employees over artistic differences is not. To use your example, if a liberal or atheist site was making the same insults about its subjects, it would be removed promptly. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Which page on my site are you talking about? --JonBroxton (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you asking for a specific review? Look at just about any recent (and even some not-so-recent) reviews of Remote Control Productions scores and the comments about their composers. For example, the comment I quoted earlier came from a film score review. A review that devolved into a slew of denigration of the composer and the studio, largely skimming the score itself. I am cautious to post the actual name, as then I will have created a on-wiki, visible link between the composer and such comments. However, here is a hint - the closing paragraph of the aforementioned "score" review:

"Let me ask a couple of questions in return. Did you love the score for Crimson Tide? Did you think King Arthur was the best score of 2004? Did you consider Armageddon to be a turning point in recent film music history? Did you rush out and buy the CDs for The Peacemaker and/or The Rock? If you answered one or more of those questions in the affirmative, I don’t think I need to say anything else." An insult to both the composers and those who like their work. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 22:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see what's happening. You are a pro-MV/RC and pro-Zimmer fan who doesn't like the fact that I have negatively reviewed some of his and his associates's scores. So you're basically pushing your own personal agenda and suppressing alternative opinions in order to keep any negative material on Zimmer from Wikipedia. Bravo. As far as that particular quote is concerned, you are correct. That is my opinion and I stand by it. However, you might also want to read [1] and [2] and [3] and [4]. These are also my opinions. Sort of blows your anti-RC theory out of the water doesn't it? As the link to my site does not contravene wiki's policies on WP:NPOV or WP:BLP (especially as the page on which this link is being added is about the genre and not any one particular composer). I am restoring the link to my site. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice try, playing the "you only disagree because you have an agenda" canard. And it does not matter if you also denigrate other composers or their work. There are very strict guidelines for material on living persons - if you have read WP:BLP you will know what I mean - and yes, you DID slander the composer, like with the quote I took at the beginning, which you now affirm to defend. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

If you took the trouble to read those links, you would see that they were very positive reviews of 2 scores by Zimmer and one by Steve Jablonsky and Klaus Badelt. You also need to familiarize yourself with the term slander, because it doesn't mean what you think it means. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm also still waiting for the link to the discussion you claim took place establishing the consensus to remove the link in the first place. Because the talk page on the film score article doesn't show it, and there's no archive. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I will grant you I used the term "slander" erroneously; the correct term is libel. You do imply they all imitate or even copy each other with little in the way of originality. And guess what? One praise does not negate partisan insults like those I have pointed out. As for the talk page, it wasn't Talk:Film score. One example (I freely admit this discussion includes myself) is on the talk page for the aforementioned score. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I do imply that. That is because that is my opinion of that particular score. You have the exact opposite opinion. You are fully entitled to that opinion, just as I am to mine. However, you disagreeing with my opinion on a couple of Zimmer/RC scores does no to give you the right to summarily dismiss a 10-year old, highly respected, well-read film music review site which may people may find a useful and informative resource, purely on a whim because you disagree with some of its contents. Wiki does not take sides. The film score article gives no indication, one way or the other, as to any biases my site may have; it simply provides a link and a title, the same as all the other linked websites on that page, all of which also have different biases and opinions on other composers, scores and genres. Furthermore, the link to the discussion you provided is merely one guy's opinion of my review; it does not establish WP:CONSENSUS to summarily remove all reference to my site. So, the link is going back. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and again, the slander/libel thing... slander (or libel) is a statement which may be damaging to an individual on a personal, legal footing. If I published a review stating that Hans Zimmer is a pedophile, that would be libel. Making a few off-the-cuff statements about me not caring for the music in a particular film score is an opinion, nothing more. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you not see how claiming - repeatedly, might I add - that the composers all copy each other could be detrimental to their public image, the very purpose WP:BLP exists for?

It does not matter if your site is thirteen billion years old; it is not exempt from the Wikipedia guidelines.

-RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I hardly think that my website has that much power. You seem to have enough individuality to disagree with me and not let it dissuade you from enjoying their music --JonBroxton (talk) 23:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nowhere near enough expertise in this field to judge the impact of your site - I'm an engineer, not an economist - but I am dubious of how constructive such commentary is. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 23:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the link breaks the Content Policies. Linking to one's own site could be considered as original research and/or advertising. As for the neutral point of view: Claiming a piece is bad due to its quality is one thing. Claiming a piece is bad due to dislike of the composer is not NPOV. Aurora Illumina 00:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, my point entirely. I have no problem with the composers themselves, purely the quality of the music itself. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You appear to have misinterpreted his/her comment. The first sentence states that the link appears to break content policies. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 02:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

And he/she then immediately contradicts him/herself by stating that "claiming a piece is bad due to its quality" does not contravene the WP:NPOV policy, which has been my point all along. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Except you often aren't actually attacking the piece on a musical basis so much as on a "it's too similar to every other Zimmer score" basis, and making controversial statements as was discussed earlier. I should also point out that you have violated WP:3RR, though nothing will in this case be done about it. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Stating that a piece of music sounds like another piece of music *is* criticism on a musical basis... because I'm talking about the music - how can it be anything else? I don't say "Jablonsky's an idiot"; I NEVER criticize the composer on a personal level. I talk about the composer's work in the context of the score - you can't review music without talking about the person who wrote it - but it's always professional, never personal. You clearly don't understand how critical analysis of an art form works if you think that any negative review immediately constitutes a personal attack on the artist, and not the art itself. Let me ask you a question; would you campaign to remove links to, say, Roger Ebert's site, or James Berardinelli's site ([5]) if you disagreed with a review he wrote of a movie you love? --JonBroxton (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a "film person", so my answer will be somewhat contrived, but I will try to answer anyway. Not unless this Ebert or Beradinelli resorted to criticizing the studio/director/producer's talent, which is what you have come uncomfortably close to doing. What I believe Aurora was intending to say is that criticism of the melody/harmony/etc is fine - even I do that to pieces from composers I like; I went to far as to modify "Pure Spirits of the Forest" from the Avatar Score - but criticizing a studio and their creative abilities for "sticking to" a style - one they have become famous for, too - is rather borderline. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question in return: I am a composer myself; I know what styles I am good at, and I tend to make more of those style of pieces than something else. For example, I am good at Thematic pieces, and sometimes Orchestral Rock, and not so good at, for example, Chorals. Would you criticize me for making more of the former, and only two of the latter? -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 03:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would depend on the context, but on the whole I wouldn't. If I thought you were good at writing thematic pieces, I would say so, irrespective of how many thematic pieces you had written. If I thought you were good at chorals I would say so, irrespective of how many choral pieces you had written. If you wrote seven orchestral rock pieces, over time, you would most likely develop certain compositional techniques and sounds which would mark them as being yours - a "calling card" so to speak - and this is usually a good thing because it defines you as an artist with a point of view and a style. If I personally like these compositional techniques and sounds, this would also come across in a review, because you can never wholly remove the subjective taste of the reviewer from a review. If, however, you wrote an orchestral rock piece that sounds like an orchestral rock piece someone else wrote, and sounds more like that person than sounding like you, then I would criticize you for that. Similarly, if my personal taste is such that I don't care for the orchestral rock piece someone else wrote, that would impact even more negatively on the review.

Let me show you some specifics, and I'll keep them to the Zimmer/RC arena (which is where I know your interest lies). In Sherlock Holmes (http://www.moviemusicuk.us/sherlockholmescd.htm), Zimmer is being creative and original (objective analysis, focusing on composing techniques, orchestration, thematic construction) and is writing in a style I personally like (subjective analysis) = positive review. In Steamboy (http://www.moviemusicuk.us/steamboycd.htm), Jablonsky is showcasing a new musical style for him (objective), with wholly original material (objective) and is writing in a style I personally like (subjective analysis) = positive review. In Transformers (http://www.moviemusicuk.us/transformerscd.htm), Jablonsky is writing in a style which Zimmer popularized (objective), suppressing his own musical voice in order to provide music which fits a certain director-led demographic, and which is also written in a style which I consider to be trite and unoriginal (subjective) = negative review. You see the difference? And then, in terms of film music, there are also all sorts of other considerations, such as the way it enhances and impacts the dramatic narrative of the film (subjective), the way the score is structured in terms of themes/variations (both objective and subjective), which also have to be taken into consideration and which impact the overall rating. Notice that in all this that the criticism is always aimed AT THE MUSIC and never AT THE COMPOSER HIMSELF, although again criticism of the composer is implied, but is always on a professional artistic level, and not on a personal level.

The thing which makes also Zimmer an especially controversial figure is the ideological nature of RC and the 'teams of composers', as opposed to the way other composers work in isolation and with a a singlular vision, but that's a whole additional conversation which I could talk about for hours. Wow, that ended up being long. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I do see what you are trying to say, and criticizing the style is fine, as was mentioned earlier. What puts my tail in a knot is then using that stylistic criticism to "justify" wholesale comments like "Jablonsky's career has promised much but delivered less" and "It’s not that I had particularly great expectations of Badelt’s score in the first place- my past experience with his work has taught me not to do that". I cannot see any possible positive interpretation of those and other comments. You say "never AT THE COMPOSER HIMSELF" and then semi-contradict that with "although again criticism of the composer is implied". That latter half is where you run afoul of sensitivity and in my opinion morality of review. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You missed the second half my remark: "criticism of the composer is implied, but is always on a professional artistic level, and not on a personal level". That's the difference: my criticism of the composer comes as a result of my opinions on the artistic qualities of the music he writes, not of the composer as a PERSON. And you're still focusing on, maybe, half a dozen reviews out of over 1,700. Less than 1%. And the only reason it's bothered is because it's a score you admire by a composer you admire, and your opinion of the score differs from mine. Look, I'm really trying to be friendly and open-minded and communicative here, but the bottom line is that we're never going to agree on matters of subjective taste, because it's subjective. If you believe that any cricicism of an artistic work equates to a criticism of the composer as a person, then every single critical analysis in the history or critical analyses must be removed from Wiki because, under your criteria, they fail WP:BLP AND WP:NPOV. --JonBroxton (talk) 04:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not about taste; I do not care whether you like what I like; what I object to are comments like the one about Badelt above, ones that have no alternative interpretation than something that evaporates to "this composer's work isn't very good". Using the above Badelt quote as an example, it is clear that the quote is intended to convey a doubt of his skill; you clearly feel he is incapable of writing a good score, and it shows. Blatantly. -RadicalOne•^{Contact Me}•_{Chase My Tail} 04:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)