User:Gmaxwell/jsbachdispute

I find Postdlf's comments acceptable but it appears that there is still some misunderstanding of the fact pattern. Because people are more likely to consult this discussion rather than the convoluted history in the future, I thought I'd set some facts straight.

I discovered that the audio clips in the J.S. Bach audio were non-free, when I had previously thought they were free. Because I am well versed in the subject, I'm as qualified as anyone else to decide that this was an abuse of our "fair use" exceptions.
Since I thought it was fairly cut and dry, I popped the non-free sound files off the article [1] and tagged them as disputed. I then went to bed.
When I returned I found that Tony1 had not only reverted my removal[2] but he had also reverted my disputed tagging on all the files.
I left Tony1 a note[3] on his talk page with a fairly minimal question designed to drive straight to the center of our misunderstanding.
He left me a talk page note [4] but failed to address my questions and instead suggesting that I don't understand our policy.
I reiterated my request that he answer my question[5].
I waited a few hours, and decided to restore the disputed tagging before I forgot about the matter. This time I took the time to carefully explain my reasoning[6], ... reasoning which I previously considered obvious.
Although the material was still in place on the article, Tony1 then posted an aggressive note on the J. S. Bach talk page[7] accusing me of having "destroyed all of the Bach sound excerpts".
Before I could reply, Makemi responded to the claims and I thought it would be better to avoid the hostility. I figured the discussion would work itself out there without me adding any further heat to the fire.
Later, when I loaded the article and saw that the clips had been removed I cleaned up the small amount of article text that specifically refereed to the works which were included inline [8].
Tony1 then noticed the deletions and spread the discussion onto many pages.

In the time since, several people have chimed in supporting the removal of these non-free samples and none of the folks complaining have made any significant effort to refute the claim that that the works were inappropriate. --Gmaxwell 01:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)