User talk:Cognition/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Beatles
Hiya, although I think the Beatles were often musically wonderful, IMHO later on they were spoiled frickin' hippies who needed a shave but broke up a cool band instead, too bad Brian died (exaggerating here for effect). My only issue with your edit was the wording and PoV tone, I agree the pith of it's factual and encyclopedic (they were criticized). Thanks for working on it more. Wyss 30 June 2005 15:22 (UTC)
[edit] Lyndon LaRouche
Hi Cognition, this is just to make you aware of some arbitration committee rulings in relation to material originating with the Lyndon LaRouche movement. LaRouche publications have been deemed not to be credible sources for Wikipedia, and may not be used as sources in articles, other than as primary-source material in articles about LaRouche. We've had two arbitration committee rulings on this, and three user accounts blocked from editing LaRouche pages, so I hope you'll do your best to edit within our policies. It might help you to read Wikipedia: No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Cite sources, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. What this boils down to is that you must cite credible, non-LaRouche sources for your edits. Anything for which the LaRouche movement is the sole or main source may be removed by any editor. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 04:01 (UTC)
- Also, as I see you're reverting other editors' work, you might also want to read about our three-revert rule (3RR), which states that if you revert, in whole or in part, to any previous version of a page more than three times within 24 hours, you may be blocked from editing for 24 hours. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule. SlimVirgin (talk) July 2, 2005 04:05 (UTC)
Please note that unlike your user page your talk page is not your property per se and as such you have less of a right to delete statements with the notable exceptions being obvious trolling, vandalism, and/or personal attacks, considering that slimvirgin's note was none of the above I took the liberty of reverting your deletion. Have a pleasant day. Jtkiefer July 2, 2005 05:36 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use images
To use a copyright image under fair use you have to justify why it is a fair use. Using an image to insult others cannot be considered fair use. I suggest you seek out PD images instead. They will still be deleted, and you may well still end up before the AC for disruption, but at least you won't be exposing Wikipedia to the risk of copyright infringement notices from the owner of the images. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 2 July 2005 08:44 (UTC)
[edit] Venetian school
I notice you insist on taking J.S. Bach out of the Venetian school article. Mind if I ask why?
If you trace forward both the development of the canzona, which emerged as an instrumental polyphonic form at that time, and the concertato principle, through the entire Baroque period, you will see that both developments lead directly to Bach. The influence of the Venetian school was particularly strong in Germany, and almost all the important developments of the entire Baroque era had a starting point Venice. Antandrus (talk) 2 July 2005 19:54 (UTC)
- Florence was the point of origin for monody, which itself was influential (in different places, and different ways). In the work of Bach you can find the influence of the Florentines as well: for instance the recitative passages in any cantata; the whole idea of recitative begins with monody and the activity of the Florentine Camerata. However anywhere you find groups of instruments playing in alternation with groups of voices, or anywhere he writes a fugue, the source goes back to Venice (with some influence from other places). This isn't to say that Bach knew the work of the Gabrielis, Croce, Diruta, and the others -- he knew it through the intermediate steps of its development in the German composers of the early 17th century. That's why I added the qualifier "eventually". Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 2 July 2005 20:04 (UTC)
[edit] Disruption
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disruption of Wikipedia. You're welcome to continue contributing after the block has expired, so long as you're prepared to edit within the terms of Wikipedia's policies and arbitration-committee rulings. SlimVirgin (talk) July 3, 2005 05:52 (UTC)
[edit] Jeanne d'Arc
Interestingly enough, you have Joan of Arc listed under "Great Men" on your user page. I would assume one of the following is true.
- It's an oversight.
- "Men" is used in a gender-neutral way (cf. Mankind).
- It's a reference to Joan's cross-dressing, masculine behavior, and/or speculated lesbianism.
I really don't care one way or another... just curious whether you're conveying the message you intend to. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) July 4, 2005 08:44 (UTC)
[edit] Disrupting Wikipedia
Cognition, this is to give you fair warning that if you continue to edit in violation of Wikipedia's policies and arbcom rulings, you will be blocked again. Please try to settle down and edit within our rules. No one is trying to block unusual points of view in general, only ones that can't be backed up with reference to credible sources. Read Wikipedia:No original research for more information. Also, I have to ask you again to stop blanking your talk page, as other editors have a right, and perhaps a need, to see these messages. SlimVirgin (talk) July 4, 2005 20:02 (UTC)
- It was a feature of user:Herschelkrustofsky that he always archived his page to remove awkward messages. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 01:19 (UTC)
-
- Well, HK had a number of friends or "voices," and it was never clear which was which, except that they all edited from the same IP addresses. So are you user:C Colden or User:Weed Harper? You've clearly edited here before, and they're the only LaRouchies we've had for any length of time. SlimVirgin (talk) July 5, 2005 01:27 (UTC)
[edit] Lyndon LaRouche?
Would you mind explaing to me who Lyndom LaRouche is and why he is important? Thanks!Gmaxwell 5 July 2005 05:34 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Report admin abuse
May I ask what the purpose of this page is -- when we already have Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Use of administrator privileges which we also use to discuss the abusive conduct and behaviour of admins? Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 06:12 (UTC)
- I redirected Wikipedia:Report admin abuse to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Use of administrator privileges since having both seemed repetitive and the report admin abuse page seemed to be totally unused. Jtkiefer July 5, 2005 06:30 (UTC)
[edit] Purpose of this encyclopedia web site
This is not a forum for individual views, but a web site dedicated to the building of a free encyclopedia. Please review site policy before editing any more article pages. Uncle Ed July 5, 2005 18:38 (UTC)
[edit] Kant
I'm curious, why is Kant a pathological liar? It seems like for that to be true he'd have had to make anything resembling an empirical statement to lie about. Snowspinner July 6, 2005 01:04 (UTC)
