Talk:Stryker (DJ)/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  No more opinions 

message: According to IMDB, Stryker was born June 4th 1977 (where as the page says 1972). -- Craigtalbert 00:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  How can you tell if the westwood one profile was copied here or vice versa? -- Craigtalbert 02:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  DOB 

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: Jimmycracker=Stryker. Obviously.  Mientkiewicz5508 20:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Wow 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Um, yes it did. Care to elaborate?Jimmycracker 04:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Request for Comment: Online petitions 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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  or from some other third party sites  . -- Craigtalbert 05:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Third Opinion 

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

message: Alot of talk about Who is DJ Atomkia from the game Burnout Paradise, Alot of hints lead towards DJ Stryker but theres been no solid answers, possibly someone could forward the question to him?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.125.57 (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burnout Paradise Star? 

message: Look, it is a proven fact that people call up the show and say he is doing a good job. You can listen yourself on the loveline archives (google it). The fact that someone would delete this fact, blatant, plain old fact, is ridiculous and proves how far down wikipedia has gone.
: Please sign your comments. Additionally, if you can find a show where it occured, you can site the link to (reference) it from the loveline archive. Though it's still questionable as to encyclopedia value of an anonymous caller supporting Stryker on the air. It is wikipedia's policy to maintain a neutral point of view, we can't make an entry for ever call someone made about Stryker. I think the controversy section is fine the way it is. It shows that noteworthy people have endorsed Stryker and that there is a vocal amount of Loveline fans who disagree. It seems like you're trying to tip the balance of the controversy section in Stykers favor, and that's not in keep with Wikipedia's stance on neutrality. -- Craigtalbert 19:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being an avid listener who can only listen by podcast and therefore have not missed a single moment of the show since October 2005, I can agree and corroborate that callers almost all speak highly of Stryker on the air.  However, should like or dislike really factor into an encyclopedia so heavily? It's a subjective thing really, and it might be better to just try to stick to facts (like movie credits and such).  "Internet User Opinion" is a interesting study is sociology in and of itself, but this may not really be the place.Legitimus 20:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm sure that's true, though I've also heard some clips of people calling in saying they don't like him -- and I'm sure they have a harder time getting by the screeners. But that's beside the point. It seems pretty clear to me that whoever this person (as reflected by their other edits) they're just trying to make the article reflect better on Stryker, and that's not the purpose of Wikipedia.  Sure, we all have bias, but I think you need to put those aside as soon as you click "edit." -- Craigtalbert 01:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I was all set to go off on this, but there's something of more importance:  It seems people are repeatedly making this article about Loveline, when in fact this article is about Stryker as a person and DJ.  This is like making Adam Carolla's page only about the Man Show and harping on how misogynist it is (if that was one's opinion).  Opinions about Loveline are valid and all, but they belong elsewhere.  There's lots of forums out there.  Also, Drew's lack of drug use does not invalidate his expertise.  He's an MD with tons of experience and provides the medical side in his practice, and acts as the boss.  However, as one can see when viewing his show "celebrity rehab," he employees a team of ex-addicts to treat people, like Shelly and Bob. Legitimus (talk) 14:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need any further convincing, listen to Adam's own words when he was the guest on March 13, 2008.  Green Bay Packers fans don't just all pack up and leave because the quarterback retires.Legitimus (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No more BS garbage 

message: Stryker left Loveline?  YES!  Now I'll start listening again, maybe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.18.178.243 (talk) 07:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loveline