User talk:Stirling Newberry/02

Edit summary

Hello. Please provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 01:46, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Romanticism, Edits and Romantic composers

For several reasons aesthetic (redundancy) and otherwise I believe that adding composers already in the Category:Romantic composers (e.g.; likewise artists) is a bad idea. (Also, with a sort key, e.g. [[Category:Romanticism|Schubert, Franz]] shows up under S, not F...

I'll "give" you such extremely central figures as, 'mongst composers, Beethoven, Liszt and Wagner *g*. Erm, Where is Wagner? On your list, that is? Did he only change history — to paraphrase the Concise Oxford — and not Romanticism?) Subjective, anyroad, and your thoughts? Regards Schissel - bowl listen 03:07, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation! — really, if there's no redundancy (if the subcategory that doesn't fit is removed) there's no problem, in my honest opinion. Indeed, the presence of the subcategory Category:Romantic composers — defined in a way at odds with yours — only confuses the issue. Schissel - bowl listen 03:34, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I know one really doesn't have to ask, but it occurs to me that the article-in-progress (well, it would be in progress) War of the Romantics might be a good addition to the cat. (The phrase itself only got 19 google hits, but I assumed the period and events described were important enough when I began it.) Schissel - bowl listen 03:45, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why not an article on the New German School, or the Leipzig School or "The Music of the Future" and cover the controversy there? Those are the historical terms that most people would know.

The other thing to do would be to start a wikibook on music history and put the material there. Stirling Newberry 04:52, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Either of those would work (though Brahmsians Versus Wagnerians does even more poorly in the "Google hit" pseudo-check, turning up nothing instead of 19. Reactionaries versus Radicals, though of course that's a loaded and somewhat POV way of describing the situation for all that it would not be agreed with by all of Liszt's camp or disagreed with by all the other, might work also. That the article on Weimar, last I checked, didn't mention Liszt was odd too. Of all the options so far mentioned I like best that of an article covering the New German School (Music of the Future I don't much like as a name, and think Franz Brendel was right to have it changed), its members with links to the articles on Draeseke, Raff, von Bulow, Pohl and of course Liszt and its conflicts with Brahms, Hanslick, Wagner, Joachim etc, its successes and its failures.) Schissel - bowl listen 05:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

What's your view of Brahms vis-à-vis the Romantic movement? My own view is that (though only a few of this works, primarily early ones such as the Ballades, took influence from literature, for example) his music (esp later) shows an integration of "Classical" and "Romantic" temperament in music as usually understood, and that his role in the Brahms-Wagner conflict makes him something of a factor in the Romantic era in music as well. Schissel - bowl listen 06:12, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your response which I will think on. I'd half-forgotten Brahms' involvement in publishing Mozart choral works e.g. the Venite Populi, and his collection of Scarlatti keyboard sonatas, and his habit, according to Prof C Spies, of working on canons as practice to begin the day.

More as to Brahms than this subject I've been considering (it may not be a Wikipedia subject as it may be too inherently POV) how his revision of the B major trio reflects on the development of his practice. Calum MacDonald had some interesting things to say about this in his Brahms bio, and so did, if I remember right, Prof Spies in the seminar he gave on Brahms' chamber music; so for that matter do the liner notes of at least one recording of the trio... Hrm. (The system is logging me off a lot today due to general problems; this is Schissel if it doesn't say as much, at 1248 Eastern Standard.) Schissel - bowl listen 17:49, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)

Stirling, do you have more information that you can upload to the Surrealism article?

Stirling, Thank you for all your uploads to the Surrealism article. They are all very helpful and I need to ask you if you have access to more of the information on surrealist art? I look forward to more of your uploads at the surrealism article.63.169.104.2 18:05, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Surrealism

I don't know what you are talking about on my talk page, so I assume my message on Talk:Surrealism where unclear. Hyacinth 20:07, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Once again, I do not know what you mean. Please explain.

What pronouncement did I make and how does the edit history of Surrealism or Talk:Surrealism affect that?

What did I do that was rude?

Hyacinth 20:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe that I support your efforts and your view of how the surrealism article should read though I do not wish to take an active part in disputes regarding that article. I am not sure what the conflict between us is, and how you feel I have interfered with your efforts. Hyacinth 20:28, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Censored material"

Why do you repeatedly say "restoring censored material" (this is a misuse of "censorship," but I'll let that pass, when you have "censored," for example, the following material:

Penelope Rosemont in the visual arts
suggestions by some art historians that surrealism ended with Dali's 1989 death
objections of many surrealists to loose use of word "surreal"
Breton's continued updating of Surrealism and Painting until 1960s (look it up!)(is this because you're working on POV of surrealism ending w/WWII?)

--Daniel C. Boyer 19:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal Group

Your creation of this article is axe-grinding and an attempt to promote a POV. The group is called the "Chicago Surrealist Group" and is almost never called the Arsenal Group. I have listed on VfD. --Daniel C. Boyer 22:10, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Revision

The changes you made in this revision are good as far as they go, but I'm still troubled by a number of things, particularly, how does information about VVV qualify as "weasel words"? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:11, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VVV

Expanded info on VVV is good. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:12, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Statistical analysis

You mentioned you had been working on statistical analysis tools of the list of Wikipedians by edits. That is, one-variable analysis of the edit counts. (At least, this is how I understand it.) How far are you? I don't know if you're actually writing a program, or a PHP script or what. I'm curious. LockeShocke 18:04, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)

Takfir

I have no idea why you responded with such venom to my attempt to take apparently controversial issues (or, in my opinion as an Arabic-speaker, clear misunderstandings of the Arabic terminology in question) to talk, but if you have any interest in defending your points, I'm happy to discuss them. - Mustafaa 21:22, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good article

Thanks for pointing this out. I intend to read it carefully.CSTAR 05:18, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Stirling, please don't make comments like the following:

Obviously you think yourself above the law and the rules.

That's a "personal remark" and is in itself a "violation of the rules". There are several better ways of getting the discussion back on track. Allow me to help you, if that's what you're trying to do. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:53, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Sock puppet?

Stirling Newberry, I am concerned by your recent edit summary for the page Intelligent design, in which you referred to two sock puppets.

I have been a recent contributor to the talk page for Intelligent design, agreeing with Ungtss concerning the edit that you reverted. Whether you intended it or not, your edit summary could be taken by some to be a suggestion that I am a sock puppet, or perhaps that Untgss is my sockputtet. Neither is the case. I am a real editor, and I have no sock puppet accounts.

I request that you place a clarifying statement on Talk:Intelligent design so as to avoid any misunderstanding. Thanks.

-Rholton 19:28, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your reply on my talk page confuses me. I don't see how what you include in your reply relates to my request that you clarify a previous remark. In fact, once again you make an ambiguous statement, which could be interpreted as accusing me of being a troll.

Could you please clarify your response? Thanks. -Rholton 20:30, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For clarity, I have copied your pieces of the conversation from my talk page:

I have cited the sources where ID supporters argue that they are defending theism against materialism from their own keyboards. There is a controversy, I have documented it. If the ID trolls want it censored - and they have repeatedly censored material they don't like, that doesn't make it POV. It means that the POV trolls will not settle for anything other than a cut and paste press release from the Discovery Institute, with the rebutall buried down the page.

There is no good faith on the talk page, and supporting flame warriors - which is what you are doing - will not generate that discussion. As long as screaming "bigot" is acceptable, then I will not accept "consensus" of trolls.

Stirling Newberry 20:17, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Let me repeat myself: the discussion on the talk page has broken down with the slurs hurled by Ungtss and the bad faith of Ed Poor. Until this problem is remedied, I do not regard there as being a conversation from which consensus can be obtained, because consensus requires consent.

While I appreciate well meaning efforts to re-establish equalibrium, there are unaddressed problems on the page which must be dealt with first. Stirling Newberry 20:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I can certainly agree that Talk:Intelligent design has reached a point where very little constructive conversation is taking place. That is not really the basis of my original request. I was not voicing an objection to the contents of your edit -- only to the contents of the edit summary, which seemed to suggest that I was either a sock puppet or was using sock puppets.

Again, I ask that you make some comment on Talk:Intelligent design clarifying the edit summary in question. Perhaps that would make some progress towards returning equalibrium and rational conversation to that page.

Thank you for the apology. I, too will be busy (offline, for the most part) for the next several hours. Take care. -Rholton 22:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Supply side economics

I have been tempted to work on that article, but refrain for the same reason I refrain from editing Intelligent design, creationism etc: I can only take so much of pseudoscience. Maybe at some point in the future I will regret this decision as more and more bizarre ideas sieze the platform of intellectual discussion.CSTAR 00:17, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neomodernism

Go for it... I don't know anything about the subject myself; it just looked like it deserved coverage. m.e. 02:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Social Security (United States)

Thanks for your comment. I expect that the fur will really start to fly on that article once Bush gets behind a specific proposal. JamesMLane 16:33, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting -- if you're at liberty to say any more about your role as a paid partisan, I'd certainly love to hear the details. Even you can't be more forthcoming, good luck with your gig. JamesMLane 02:58, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lowell, Massachusetts

Thank you for fixing the Lowell entry. I appreciate it. --Azathar 14:25, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So am I, going to Graduate School @ UML. I live in the Highlands.--Azathar 21:33, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, nice to meet you. Deb 22:12, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikicite

This is a brilliant idea! I'm not sure I appreciate yet all the ramifications, but right away I can see how I could use it to direct readers to specific sections, warnings about other sections, summaries, what you "really need to know", POV's etc. Also we can use it to canonicalize references within WP (right now its a seat of the pants thing for me, maybe if I were less lazy I could figure out what the standard is) The Wikicite] should also be "compatible" with bibtex, which is the citation format of choice for math, physics and some other areas.CSTAR 06:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

RfC

I note that you have put up RfCs for User:Daniel C. Boyer and User:24.168.66.27. However, neither of them is formatted properly, so you are unlikely to get a response. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Example user for a template on how to properly start an RfC on a user. --Carnildo 21:40, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Work pages

Thanks! They're fun to do (though just at the moment I can't help with uploading images of parts of pieces, for example.) Schissel : bowl listen 19:55, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)

Legal threats

From your RfC on User:Daniel C. Boyer:

That isn't a dispute over credibility, that is a full out attack, without citation, except from a fringe publication. Given that Mr. Boyer has a financial interest, and it is both willfully false and with the intent to defame, it is at the level of legally actionable.

May I remind you of the policy Wikipedia:No legal threats? This statement borders on violating the policy. --Carnildo 07:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC) edia.org

Re: Wikicite

Howdy. You added the message below to my talk page a few days ago. I'm not sure what the intention of your message was; perhaps it was incomplete? Does your project require assistance in generating analyses of the wikipedia database? If so, please clarify. - TB 09:31, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wikicite To add a card catalog and citation features. Stirling Newberry 23:51, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Cultural Imprints

Your article on Cultural determinism is great. Wow. Since obviously you know more about it than I do, am I writing the same article as you wrote or is my article different from Cultural determinism? Can you explain the nuance to me. And if my article gets deleted can you meld at least the first part into your determinism article or if you can rewrite the article for me. I am not quite as good as you. As for the Gramsci stuff, I will move it to Wikinfo. And if you can rewrite the material can you leave as much direct quoting as possible. I believe that direct quotes have more force on people to see it actually instead of being "interpreted" by a third party. Thanks for the Cultural determinism article. That's great.WHEELER 23:19, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I got an idea, could you take your material put it in the Cultural Imprint, then rename it Cultural determinism because at least I got the ball rolling on getting this idea onto Wikipedia. I would love to have the credit for starting it but you are an extremely better writer than I. I need this idea/concept to use for my [Classical definition of republic]. Have you seen how I have used this in the Romanitas article? Thanks.WHEELER 23:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ohh, one more thing. Check out my "Classical definition of republic" and "Xenelasia". I try to put in as much original text as possible because I think that other people get more out of reading original material and it makes the text exciting and interesting. And if we can collaborate on this, this will be great.

I knew the idea but I didn't know what it is called. Maybe I should have labelled it Cultural determinism. Let me know. WHEELER 23:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The more I think of it. Please move your stuff into the Cultural imprints. Remove the Revolutionary Cultural TRansformation techniques, After the Nomos thing add the stuff from Classical Antiquity. Or give me permission to do it all. I can do it. Thanks a billion. Please let me borrow your stuff and meld it in. And then you can do the rest giving yourself credit. This is great. Let me know what you think Thanks a million times. WHEELER 00:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trickle down effect

Is there anything I should know about this page before requesting a move to Trickle-down economics? Gazpacho 10:58, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but I was interested in the history of the article, rather than your outlook on the subject. The most common rhetorical form is "Trickle-down economics" and I would like to move it there, unless it would violate some standing compromise about the article title. Gazpacho 20:02, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. [1] So first a decade ago Japan was at fault, now China. 172 06:45, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Weblog

Hi,

Neither your edit nor Stevie's was vandalism on Weblog. You've now both accused each other of vandalism where there is none. You're in a revert war, nothing more. Please use Talk:Weblog and discuss your changes, it's a much better approach than reverting. Rhobite 17:36, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

Also, please watch the reverts for a practical reason - you could be blocked for violating the three revert rule. Rhobite 17:39, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

You've reverted Weblog three times now. Please don't do it again. I have also warned Stevietheman. Rick K 01:01, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

Bell's theorem

Thanks for your input on Bell's theorem!

This has taught me an important lesson: pseudoscientic crackpots cause stress. No amount of rational argument suffices. And here we're talking about a small time crank. Do I now really want to look at ID and specified complexity which attracts big-time cranks supported by big-time money?CSTAR 01:00, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is interesting is I've known people who did serious work on the possibility of local variables, and her work did not pass the laugh test. Many of the problems in the experiments she cites have long since been answered. Stirling Newberry 01:14, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Weblog

Hi. You have been blocked for 24 hours for a 3RR violation on Weblog, as was User:Stevietheman. Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. -- Chris 73 Talk 03:06, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is some discussion about your block. You are currently unblocked. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for details. -- Chris 73 Talk 05:54, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)

The Great Game

Hi. Thanks for this fine contribution to this article. Perhaps you would like to comment on the title of the article on the talk page. Talk:The Great Game. Jooler 12:20, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

fair trade

Nice expansion of my edits in fair trade. I'm glad to work with someone who knows more about the topic than I do. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:52, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)