User talk:59.101.238.34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 59.101.238.34). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. — mholland (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to 4′33″

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to 4′33″, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — mholland (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit war on the 4′33″ article; you will be blocked (even if you don't overtly cross the line of WP:3RR). I also encourage you to create and account and always sign your talk-page posts.
Atlant 11:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If I don't cross the line of 3RR, why will I be blocked? I am not breaking any other rules. I am not vandalising Wikipedia. Furthermore, I didn't start the edit war. 59.101.238.34 06:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you go read the edit war article (along with WP:3RR), you will see that you are not entitled to "3 edits per day" and can, in fact, be blocked once it's clear that you are edit-warring. Just a word to the wise (from an administrator)...
Atlant 12:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I read the edit war article and it seems that those who should be blocked due to edit warring are only those who break 3RR. If you want to work on a compromise solution I'll of course discuss it, but I will not submit to majority rule ("Wikipedia is not a democracy") nor continuous reversion. And if I am blocked from editing for this I will have something to say about it. It seems in any case that opinion is shifting toward my side; the article has persisted in its non-reverted form for two days, and I hardly think nobody has visited it in that time. I repeat what I said above: I am not a vandal, my edits reflect not point-of-view but a desire for Wikipedia to present the clear facts. 59.101.238.34 13:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
It appears your edit is unsupported original research, and the fact that no one reverted you for two days simply may mean that we have other things to do than watch the 4'33" article. So let me make this perfectly clear: You've been warned that what you're doing is edit warring; the next time you revert the article to your view of the world, I will block you. You, of course, have the right to take your complaint(s) to The Administrators' Noticeboard Incidents Page.
Atlant 00:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't threaten me. You have the power to block me; that doesn't give you the right, especially as you seem to be taking the opposing side, rather than a neutral position, in this edit war (which I admit is what has been happening). See my last note below; I would be glad to attempt to compromise. I don't want to take any complaints anywhere; we should be able to settle this, civilly, between ourselves. "We have other things to do"...who's this "we"? Surely you're not saying that nobody visited the page in that time, whether an administrator or a casual editor like me or a mere browser. If they had, and thought the page worth reverting, they would have done so. Finally, it is not a matter of "my view of the world", except insofar as several others, yourself included, seem to have an opinion on the matter that is at odds with established facts, common sense and the nature of knowledge. Wikipedia is not a place for advocating points of view, and I am aware of and respect that. I will leave the article in its present state as a gesture of good faith, until and so that we can come to an arrangement. 59.101.238.34 04:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not continue to revert reflexively over at 4′33″. The edit you are removing cites two independent sources which attest to the work's being a serious piece of avant garde art; your revision removes those sources and substitutes an unsourced claim that the work is a parctical joke. Removing sourced material from Wikipedia could be considered vandalism, and may result in a block.

I would be very supportive of a compromise, in which the claim is attributed to a musician, or an art critic, or even Spike Milligan or Douglas Adams. Unfortunately, despite looking, I cannot find such a claim: if you can find a third party opinion which says that 4'33" is an elaborate joke, then we can begin to find a compromise. — mholland (talk) 14:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not an opinion I am citing. It is observable fact that the piece is a joke. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it; personally I think it's one of the best jokes of the 20th Century, perhaps one of the best ever. Wikipedia doesn't have a citation after every sentence. Let's keep the references in there then, I didn't mean to remove them each time I reverted; the whole point of the joke, after all, is to get people to think it's serious music. Would that satisfy you (for now, while we track down a reference where someone else has noticed the joke)? 59.101.238.34 22:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's been over a week since I left the last two replies, and I haven't heard anything back offering any sort of compromise or opinion on how the issue should be dealt with. I'll leave messages on each of your pages because you're probably not watching this one. I find it rather rude of the both of you that I haven't had a reply at all, not even a "Sorry, but I don't think any compromise is possible, the article should be left as-is" (in which case I'll take the issue higher). If I don't hear anything in another week I'll go back to fixing the article again; until then, my offer to talk about it stands. 59.101.238.34 01:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any sources being found for the "joke" claim, I'm afraid that my opinion is probably of the "no compromise is possible" sort. WP:NOR is a policy and it isn't negotiable. I can conceive of such a source existing: an article or a book chapter on avant garde art as a joke, with reference to Cage, but without a citation I am uncomfortable with the claim being in the article at all, especially not in the first sentence. My apologies if my unresponsiveness has appeared rude - I am quite busy off-wiki. — mholland (talk) 17:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Your unresponsiveness after a few days I could put down to being busy - we all have lives outside Wikipedia - but after more than a week, given I had invited you to make an offer, was damn rude. Now:
I would stand by the claim that it's not original research, but I must concede I was a mite depressed when I saw the WP:V article. I maintain it is silly to insist on this point - Wikipedia does not have a citation after every statement of fact - but I admit if you're going to stick by that policy I don't have a leg to stand on. However if you do stick by that policy, 90% of the information on this encyclopedia should be deleted. "Verifiability, not truth"? For one who believes in truth as strongly as I do, that line is rather sad. Truth is not only based on what is said; basically what that rule is saying is that editors must be mindless, only ever regurgitating what they've read, and that what is published and false has more of a right to be here than what is so obvious that nobody has bothered to say it (not that this issue fits in that category). I think we should credit our editors with a modicum of intellect. I knew everything had to be verifiable, but I used my common sense and assumed that anything a reader could either a) work out for himself or b) look up and read would be equally verifiable, by the proper definition of the term. Of course, I would argue for the publication of the clear fact that 4'33" is a joke in any other work on the subject, but here I'm afraid I must concede defeat (by the rules of Wikipedia - the moral high ground is still mine) to narky conservativism, inconsistent (or at least inconsistently-applied) rules, and arrogant administrators. Thank you and good night. 59.101.238.34 22:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)