User talk:Stirling Newberry/04

Tonality reversion a good thing

For what it's worth, I support your reversion of Tony1's changes.

"Tonality" is not a purely European concept. It clearly predates the church origins that Tony1 implies (Pythagoras, anyone?) and surely developed independently elsewhere (though I can't cite any specific examples).
"Chord" and "triad" can't simply be exchanged as Tony1 implied. I can invert a seventh chord just as well as a simple major triad, right? (My theory is, admittedly, a bit rusty.)
Regarding the "scale degree" table, roman numerals are vastly more commonly used, at least outside of jazz.

All in all, I'm not sure what Tony1's motivation is for these changes. I am genuinely interested, and hopefully it will become clear through some discussion. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:25, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, where did I do that?

You wrote: "Please don't make statements about policy not being followed unless you are sure it is not being followed. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 03:38, 30 July 2005 (UTC)"[reply]

Sorry, but I don't know to what statment of mine you are objecting to? Can you please provide the reference? "Bush move" I don't get? Thanks. Calicocat 03:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Simple vandalism" on Joe Scarborough?

Who exactly has added "simple vandalism"? J. Parker Stone 04:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to bring this up, but why do you consider the actions of editors who decide to not login simple vandalism? Several other editors who do not login have edited this article and do not have a history of vandalism, and they removed thesame paragraph. Please, look at the article discussion first. I'm not questioning your motives, I'm just asking for respect of the other editors in kind. Conradrock 07:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Your response is tettering close to bad faith. I made no mention of the RFC, only the edits and discussion that non-anonymous editors have made, and I also wanted to point out not all of the anonymous editors to this article are trying to engage in an edit war. The RFC is otiose, pure and simple, and you shouldn't be taking out your bad feelings on the RFC on editors who aren't even involved. You haven't contributed anything constructive; you just went in and reverted without even looking at the discussion by others. Plus, if you even bothered to read Talk:Joe_Scarborough, you would notice that myself and User:Rhobite have been trying to establish a compromise between the two parties, but we've both been honest and made our views clear. I'm sorry, but you've violated one of the cardinal rules of mediation, and have done nothing but increased the intensity of the situation. Conradrock 08:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You opened the door to being uncivil, Mr. Newberry; then you made assumptions based on a limited basis of facts. You're just like the anonymous IPs that are constantly reverting this article, you're going into the argument blind. I treated you with no disrespect during my initial inquiry, and you fired away like I was attacking you. You attacked first Mr. Newberry, for no other reason other than a simple friendly inquiry. Now, you can either participate in the discussion or leave the article alone. Your decision, and I do not anticipate a response. Conradrock 15:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Conradrock. Many of us are trying to resolve this dispute on the Joe Scarborough talk page. Since you, Stirling Newberry, simply revert without participating in that discussion your actions are exactly the same as those you accuse of vandalism.--Heathcliff 23:07, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you fail to see the point. For someone who feels "insulted" you do seem to resort to uncivil attacks and accusations at first, as shown by your history. If you bothered to research, you will see that I participated in reverting and bringing action Old_Right due to his lack of discussion, and he opposes the view that you have made strongly. You have shown your bad faith as of now, by resorting to insults and ad hominem attacks from the start of our, for lack of a better term, conversation. I asked you a simple question, and you have resorted to insults and personal attacks in order to avoid the question. No one else, besides the random anonymous trolls, have engaged in such behavior. Perhaps you should step back and review this matter before you engage in your current course. Also, please do not reply with your canned "uncivil" message that you have used on the numerous people whose views you disagree with. Conradrock 00:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

consensus

The Authentic Matthew VFD has closed. The results were

Delete - 21 (58%)
Keep - 11 (31%)
Merge - 4 (11%)

This was declared to have been no consensus, and therefore a new VFD has been opened at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Authentic Matthew (consensus).

Would you be prepared to re-add your vote there? ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 09:40, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous RfCs

I endorsed your comment that anonymous Requests for Comment should be closed without comment. I think that guidelines should be clarified to explain why anonymous editors are welcome, but do not have some of the privileges of logged-in users. In particular, I thinkt that they should not be able to request dispute resolution, and should not presume to think that they can vote in surveys. I also think that there should be a mechanism to allow admins to protect articles from all anonymous edits. At this time, there are at least two articles that are being subjected to attacks by anonymous editors. On the Senator Edward Kennedy page, an anonymous editor wants to put a link to a crude attack site against the Kennedy family. He claims that the vote is 12-11 in favor of the link. I think it is 11-1 against, because I count all of the anonymous edits as one vote if that. Also, there is an anonymous vandal called Dot-Six who thinks that NPOV and consensus are logical fallacies, and disrupts pages on philosophy in support of some argument. I think that those pages should be protected.

In any case, I agree that anonymous complaints should be discarded. Robert McClenon 00:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Editor issues with User:Mirror_Vax

Stirling, I've copied below a section of the talk page on Movement to impeach George W. Bush, which you can find here. The user, User:Mirror_Vax, is acting in bad faith and continually insulting other editors and he has not contributed a word of editing or research to the article, yet he continully places the "totallydisputed" there. Please, when time allows, have a look at the talk sections and see if you don't agree that this user is just there to cause trouble, his only effort seems to be directed at keeping a "negative" tag on the article. Thanks for checking this out. Cheers, Calicocat 21:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from comment on talk page, link above) I have issues with the behaviour of Mirror Vax. He has contually replaced the Totallydisputed tag on this article, yet has made no substantive points as to why and has not contributed one word of editing to improve the article. I opened up two specific talk sections calling for him, by name, to contibute his exact examples of where the article is lacking in factually accuracy and neutrality. Rather than making use of those sections, he put them down as "empty" sections and then also put down a simple staw poll section I put in the talk section to get a reading from the other editors here. Mirror Vax's objections are nothing more than a few minor issues more in the area of clean-ups. Again, Mirror Vax, has done no editing at all on this article, other than to continually challenge its neutrality and accuracy. He has done no research or writing to help improve this article. His only contribution is to snipe and make uncivil remarks to other editors and I feel he is acting as a kind of agent provocateur. He has been highly uncivil to me and to other editors of this article. (He left a message with a highly insulting personal comment on my user talk page, which he weakly attemped to veil by phrasing it in the negative, "it's not like I'm saying X." I will not repeat what he said here, but it was completely inappropriate). Finding no substantive points in the article with regard to neutrality or factual accuracy, I have again removed the totallydisputed tag. Calicocat 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Authentic Matthew the Sequel

The POV that was in Authentic Matthew, an article you voted to delete, before it was NPOVed has been re-created at a new article - see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/The Original Gospel of Matthew. ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 20:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A message for you

Two questions: why do you consider someone who doesn't conform to your point of view a personal attack, e.g. Rhobite, Conradrock, Trey Stone? Also, why do you refer to your self as "notable" and in the third person when the only notable thing you have done according to Google is write a couple of blogs whining about Bush? Also, how are you a "Military Analyst" when you have done nothing with any aspect of Military operations? Please answer me, millions of other people would love to know. Ray Lopez 11:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]