Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Nicholas Cimini

Nicholas, as far as I can tell his criticism seems fair - the material that you were adding *was* POV and for the few that I looked at, I didn't see that many efforts on your part to make it better. So I understand it being rejected as a whole.

Plus, vandalism and personal attacks *are* off limits (*especially* vandalism).

However, I still think a RfC is a bit extreme, since there is (as far as I can tell) only one other wikipedian involved. Flammifer 12:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Discussion Page and the History page in their actual contexts. Mr Newbury's selective presentation of the dispute does nobody any favours. His accusations are totally unfounded. And I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. --Nicholas 12:15, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've already looked at the talk page, though I haven't analyzed the history in detail. I'm certainly no expert on postmodern music, but the bit you were adding doesn't look very NPOV to me. *And* vandalism is still definitely off-limits. It's not something normal wikipedians do. And [[1]] definitely looks like some kind of vandalism.

I just think a RfC is a bit excessive, and this one will probably go nowhere anyway, since Stirling is the only one complaining.

Also, if you want to make your case, pointing out what behaviour of stirling is objecitonable too, by pointing to certain specific edits will be much more effective than saying "his accusations are totally unfounded" or "it's the pot calling the kettle black". Flammifer 12:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "vandalism" is a little strong in this context. Mr Newbury could very easily be accused of vandalism, for refusing to co-operate with the improvement of the article. He accepts that the article is biased in its current state but he refuses to do anything about it. He is unwilling to discuss the actual content of the debated material, choosing instead to focus on "verbiage" which I have moderated with my edits. I hate to take things out of their context but compare my first attempt to insert the debated material [[2]], with the most recent [[3]]. There is a big difference! But both have been completely deleted. There are so many problems with the debated article, that its almost unreadable, but Mr Newbury seems intent on deleting only the material that doesn't conform to his POV. And he does not wish to discuss the actual content of the debated material.--Nicholas 12:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, saying that you deleting several portions of the article without explanation or prior discussion is vandalism is "a little strong in this context", but somebody refusing to accept your changes and work on them can "easily be accused of vandalism", eh ? :)

Sorry but when i deleted references to Adorno I explained the deletion. And likewise my other deletions. The explanations are on the talk page and in the blurb above the history of those particular edits.--Nicholas 13:32, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There *is* some progress between the two edits you show, but the second one still looks pretty POV. The first one being even more so doesn't strike me as a particularly good argument. If you really want to improve the article, you could look up what some art critic or professor has to say about postmodern music, and paraphrase that : "Professor Shmink has observed in his book, 'echoes of modernity' that postmodern music does not ..." - that would be more encyclopedic. It doesn't have to be your own POV that you add, no matter how accurate you think it is. Flammifer 13:14, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Postmodern intellectuals might write about "postmodern music" but i doubt that others would even consider the idea. The majority of them are discussing real issues, like poverty, inequality and war and such like. They have bigger fish to fry. Thus it will be extremely difficult to find references for this section of the paper.--Nicholas 13:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like hyperbole. Are you saying that there are no critics of postmodernity besides yourself?

You may find

Wikipedia:Cite sources helpful. To insist that this opinion in not supportable through citation is to argue that your addition is original research. Please see: Wikipedia:No original research. Hyacinth 19:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

No Hyacinth, I never said that. However I am saying that I've yet to find any references for critics who focus on "postmodern music". Of course people critise postmodernism (

Callinicos, Harvey, amongst others.). I think it's less likely that they would criticise "postmodern music".--Nicholas 09:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

Can anyone tell me what happens with this page? I believe that Mr Newbury's is the only signature which is valid (since he has sought to provide proof of his role in the dispute), and thus this page should be deleted. Am i correct in presuming this? When will this page be deleted? --Nicholas 17:35, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For opinions regarding the necessity of an entire section that is critical vs criticism within each section, see Wikipedia:Criticism. Hyacinth 19:12, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have this page deleted? The Request for comment was not successful and yet this page remains --Nicholas 16:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]